Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T14:17:43.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A TALE OF TWO CITIES? DIFFERENT DATES FOR THE PARTHIAN SECESSION FROM THE SELEUCIDS, AND THE REVOLT OF AN AFRICAN HECATOMPYLUS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2026

Andrew Martin Hill
Andrew Martin Hill*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin
*
hillan@tcd.ie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hecatompylus (Tébessa, Algeria) was a Carthaginian subject by the third century b.c. In 256 the Roman consul M. Atilius Regulus invaded Punic North Africa, sparking a widespread rebellion of an alleged 200 cities (App. Pun. 3.11). Far to the east, the rebellion of the Seleucid satrap Andragoras, based at another Hecatompylus (Shahr-e Qumis, Iran), predated the invasion of the future Parthian king Arsaces I by a number of years, but is usually dated to the 240s. Justin’s dating of the ‘first revolt’ of the Parthians to both the year of Regulus’ consulship (256/255) and the reign of Seleucus II (246–225) has naturally called into question which of these date ranges is correct, as well as what event precisely he refers to (Epit. 41.4.3).

This article provides a hypothetical solution to this problem in suggesting that a conflation of events, dates and places has occurred in this confused passage of Justin’s Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. The solution understands Trogus—or more likely his key source, Timagenes—as having misinterpreted a reference to the revolt of the African Hecatompylus during Regulus’ invasion as meaning its more famous namesake, the Parthian capital, which revolted from the Seleucids around a decade later. By revisiting the context and sources for the revolt of the African city, this article also offers fresh perspective on the ordering of events in the latter stages of the First Punic War and the career of the general Hanno ‘the Great’, rival to Hamilcar Barca.

Keywords

ParthiaCarthageHellenistic historyhistoriographyJustintoponymy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , December 2025 , pp. 730 - 746
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

1. INTRODUCTION

post hunc a Nicatore Seleuco ac mox ab Antiocho et successoribus eius possessi, a cuius pronepote Seleuco primum defecere primo Punico bello, L. Manlio Vulsone M. Atilio Regulo consulibus. (Just. Epit. 41.4.3)

After him [Antigonus, who died in 301] they [the Parthians] were under the power of Seleucus Nicator and later under Antiochus and his successors, and it was against Antiochus’ great-grandson Seleucus that they first revolted during the First Punic War, in the consulship of L. Manlius Vulso and M. Atilius Regulus.Footnote 1

The most controversial text in what has become a well-trodden academic debate on the date of the formation of the Parthian state is a passage in Justin’s Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, where two conflicting termini post quem are given for the secession of the Parthians from the Seleucids. Justin’s text tells us that they first revolted from the great-grandson of Antiochus I, that is, Seleucus III (226–223 b.c.); yet it is usually thought that either the great-grandson of Seleucus I is meant (because he founded the dynasty), or the grandson of Antiochus: either solution leaves us with Seleucus II (246–225), mentioned just afterwards in the text.Footnote 2 Yet Justin also gives the precise consular date of 256/255—that is, the date of Lucius Manlius Vulso and Marcus Atilius Regulus (Epit. 41.4.3–4). This basic disparity has led to the formation of ‘high’ and ‘low’ dating, with some scholars arguing for 256, some for 246 and later, and some for a combination of ‘high’ and ‘low’ dates accommodating a phased secession starting with the satrap Andragoras’ revolt and ending with the invasion of the Aparni under Arsaces I.Footnote 3 In this article, I shall present a hypothetical solution by which I hope to make a small contribution to the debate, one which reinforces a ‘low’ chronology as more likely.

In 256, the Roman consul Atilius Regulus invaded Carthaginian Africa. Landing at Cap Bon, his daring campaign was initially successful, but the expedition was destroyed in 255 in a pitched battle close to Tunis by an army led by the Spartan mercenary captain, Xanthippus (Polyb. 1.33–4; Diod. Sic. 23.14–15; App. Pun. 3; Zonar. 8.13; Livy, Per. 18.2; Flor. Epit. 1.18.2.23; Oros. 4.9.2–4; Eutr. 2.21; [Aur. Vict.] De uir. ill. 40).Footnote 4 Holt has suggested that Justin was attempting to parallel Rome’s short-lived victory in Africa with the first revolt of the Parthians from the Seleucids. Yet, as he notes, this ‘extraordinary Roman consular date … represents Justin’s one attempt in the forty-four books of his history to give an exact synchronization between East and West, and yet it fails us.’Footnote 5 It must be said that there is no obvious parallel between events in the east and west here—that is, between the peculiar set of events which led to the rise of the Parthian state and a failed Roman invasion of Punic Africa—and some other explanation is needed.Footnote 6

The solution I propose is that a conflation of different events in east and west has occurred in our sources owing to confusion over the name ‘Hecatompylus’, a name applied most famously to an early capital city of the Parthians and formerly a prominent seat of power in the Seleucid satrapy of Parthia and Hyrcania, and also to a rather less famous city in Punic Africa (the modern Tébessa, Algeria) situated in what was at that time a region of Carthage’s territory bordering Numidia.Footnote 7 Interestingly, this African Hecatompylus revolted from Carthaginian rule in the same general period in which the secession of Parthia from the Seleucids occurred. In fact, a review of the evidence shows that the year of Regulus’ invasion (256/255) is the most likely date for this Libyan revolt; it is quite possible, therefore, that the text of Justin carries the result of a misinterpreted notice, possibly from a Roman annalistic source, referring to the revolt of the African Hecatompylus in that year, confusing it for the secession of the Parthian city of the same name.Footnote 8 This solution might explain why Justin’s abridged account of the Parthian rebellion makes mention of Atilius Regulus and the First Punic War (264–241), which are more obvious contexts for the revolt in Africa. Towards the end of the article, I will demonstrate a probable origin for the error, which was unlikely to have come from the epitomator Justin, but more plausibly was carried over from the original text of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. On the comparative evidence of a possible unidentified fragment of the author, I propose that the ultimate source of the conflation is Trogus’ source and Augustan contemporary: the Alexandrian scholar Timagenes.

2. THE PARTHIAN REVOLT(S)

Before I come to the context surrounding the revolt of the African Hecatompylus and the erroneous consular date in Justin, an outline of the sources for the emergence of the Parthian state will be beneficial. As stated above, a ‘low’ chronology placing the Parthian secession in the 240s, or later, has been preferred by many scholars, and there are good reasons for this despite Justin’s precise consular date placing it a decade earlier. For a start, the Parthian calendar places the beginning of the Arsacid era on the first day of the Babylonian month of Nisan (14th/15th April), 247: most probably, the date at which Arsaces I was elected as leader of the Aparni tribe which had settled near the Caspian Sea in northern Parthia.Footnote 9 Arsaces had risen from obscurity as a raider before ascending to the leadership of the Aparni (Just. Epit. 41.4.6–7; Amm. Marc. 23.6.2). Opportunistic and daring, it was apparently not long before he was able to capitalize on instability in the Seleucid empire following the death of Antiochus II in 246 and the rebellion of the satrap of Parthia, Andragoras, to seize a much greater domain for himself (Hdn. 6.2.7).Footnote 10 Andragoras probably ruled independently until c.239/238 when, timed with Seleucus II’s loss at the Battle of Ancyra to Antiochus Hierax during the War of the Brothers (c.240–237),Footnote 11 Arsaces invaded Parthia and killed Andragoras.Footnote 12 Sometime later, he expanded his realm into Hyrcania and managed to establish a treaty with the Bactrians to his east which enabled him to successfully face off against Seleucus II in a battle which secured him a kingdom (Just. Epit. 41.4.6–10; cf. Strabo 11.8.8).Footnote 13

The different phases of Parthia’s transition out of Seleucid control doubtless led to much of the confusion in the literary sources.Footnote 14 Thus, when Justin refers to the time when the Parthians ‘first revolted’ (primum defecere), he may mean Andragoras’ satrapal rebellion prior to the invasion of the Aparni, especially given the evident confusion in Justin’s text about a supposed connection between Andragoras and Arsaces’ dynasty (Epit. 41.4.3, 12.4.12).Footnote 15 His placing of this initial rebellion in the reign of Seleucus II, therefore, poses no problems.Footnote 16 Yet the question as to how the erroneous consular date of 256/255 was arrived at remains.Footnote 17 The key lies, I argue, in the necessarily important role of the city of Hecatompylus in these events and the confusion which could have arisen over its name.

2.1. Hecatompylus in Parthia

Of the early centres of Parthian royal authority, Asaak is where Arsaces was crowned and where an eternal flame was kept, and Nisa (or Parthaunisa) was, according to Isidorus, where royal tombs were located.Footnote 18 Yet Hecatompylus was, according to Strabo, the ‘royal seat of the Parthians’ (11.9.1), and its well-established mint was surely the place where most of the Parthians’ first coins, which are of high quality, were struck.Footnote 19 Positioned near the Caspian Gates on a fertile tract bounded by territory that was rough and scarce of supplies, it was a naturally defensible gateway to the east (cf. Strabo 11.8.9; Polyb. 10.28; Plin. HN 6.44, 6.61). Its fitting name derived from the fact that it was ‘the meeting place of all the roads leading to the surrounding districts’—its importance to the region reflected in its geography as much as anything else, it being situated ‘in the middle of Parthyene’ (Polyb. 10.28.7; cf. Plin. HN 6.113).Footnote 20 Clearly already a place of importance (to judge from Polybius’ account) by the time of Antiochus III’s eastward campaign when he temporarily forced Arsaces II to abandon the region c.209 (10.28–9),Footnote 21 it was probably a prominent seat of power from the earliest period of Arsacid rule.Footnote 22 Conquered by Arsaces I (probably c.239/238),Footnote 23 Hecatompylus rapidly became the ‘Arsakid metropolis’.Footnote 24

Apparently a (re)foundation of Seleucus I (App. Syr. 57.298),Footnote 25 Hecatompylus’ importance to the Parthians stemmed from its prior status as a major centre of Seleucid authority. Though not mentioned by name in Justin’s account of the Parthian secession, this is the most likely place for Andragoras to have been based in his period of independence before being overthrown by Arsaces (c.245–238). Coins bearing Andragoras’ name were probably minted at this location—the capital of his satrapy—and it was very likely here that he proclaimed his autonomy.Footnote 26 Plausibly, Hecatompylus featured prominently in an account of the events surrounding the initial revolt of Andragoras prior to Arsaces’ coming to power in Parthia now lost to us, such as the Parthica of Apollodorus of Artemita.Footnote 27 Assuming that Trogus’ account knew it and was familiar with the importance of the Parthian Hecatompylus to these events, it is quite possible that an erroneous date for Parthia’s ‘first revolt’ slipped into his narrative via careless cross-referencing with another source which made mention of the revolt of a city also called Hecatompylus, in quite a separate place altogether, during the consulship of M. Atilius Regulus (256/255).

3. THE REVOLT OF THE AFRICAN HECATOMPYLUS

The African Hecatompylus was, according to Diodorus, founded by Heracles and a prosperous and large city even prior to Carthage’s conquest (Diod. Sic. 4.18.1):

διεξιὼν δὲ τὴν ἄνυδρον τῆς Λιβύης, καὶ περιτυχὼν χώρᾳ καταρρύτῳ καὶ καρποφόρῳ, πόλιν ἔκτισε θαυμαστὴν τῷ μεγέθει, τὴν ὀνομαζομένην Ἑκατόμπυλον, ᾗ ἔθετο τὴν προσηγορίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτὴν πυλῶν. διαμεμένηκε δὲ ἡ ταύτης τῆς πόλεως εὐδαιμονία μέχρι τῶν νεωτέρων καιρῶν, ἐν οἷς Καρχηδόνιοι δυνάμεσιν ἀξιολόγοις καὶ στρατηγοῖς ἀγαθοῖς στρατεύσαντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν κύριοι κατέστησαν.

Travelling through the waterless part of Libya, and happening upon well-watered and fruitful land, [Heracles] founded the city of wondrous magnitude named Hecatompylus, giving it the appellation for its many gates. The good fortune of this city persisted until later times, when the Carthaginians campaigned against it with impressive forces and capable generals, establishing themselves as rulers.

The expedition which first subdued the city possibly occurred in the second half of the fifth century during the conquests of the Magonid dynasty of military leaders—to which event a confused passage of Ammianus Marcellinus about Carthage’s ‘early career of wide expansion’ almost certainly refers (17.4.2–3).Footnote 28 That Hecatompylus would have been a city in rebellion in the third century (rather than a fresh conquest along with other areas of the Numidian uplands including Sicca, as is often asserted)Footnote 29 finds support in Diodorus’ account of the inroads of the Syracusan general Eumachus who, while he did not advance so far as Hecatompylus, was active in the region in 307 (Diod. Sic. 20.57.4–58.6). Although an aim of Eumachus’ was surely the provision of loot for his men,Footnote 30 his overall aims in winning the war would have chimed with those of his master Agathocles who had landed in Africa in the calculated hope that the ‘allies’ (οἱ σύμμαχοι) under Carthaginian suzerainty ‘would grasp the opportunity for revolt’ (Diod. Sic. 20.3.3; cf. Just. Epit. 22.5.4–11).Footnote 31 Since Eumachus would hardly be sent out to embark on a far-flung, exploratory series of conquests with the war for Carthage ongoing in his rear, his Numidian anabaseis must therefore be seen as attempts to peel away such allies—something which he achieved in the first instance at Dougga (Τώκαι)Footnote 32 with the Numidians of the surrounding vicinity (Diod. Sic. 20.57.4).Footnote 33

Neither the westward nor the southward extent of Eumachus’ incursions can be known with certainty, but his first of two marches was probably centred on the area of western Byzacium between Mactar and Sufetula,Footnote 34 while his second journey took him considerably deeper into the interior, across high mountains to the three ‘Monkey Cities’ (Πιθηκοῦσσαι); at that point he decided to turn back towards the sea owing to reports that hostile forces were amassing in great numbers nearby (Diod. Sic. 20.58.6).Footnote 35 Whatever the exact territorial extent of Eumachus’ African anabaseis, what is clear is that large swathes of uplands deep into the Numidian interior were under Carthaginian hegemony almost a hundred years before the third-century action undertaken by Hanno (see below).Footnote 36 The concern of Carthage’s leaders for these regions is also clear from what they did next when, in preparing a three-pronged counter-campaign to gain back lost ground, they sent one army to the coastal cities (τὰς παραθαλαττίους πόλεις), another to the hinterland (τὴν μεσόγειον), while a final army was dispatched to recover these interior regions (τοὺς ἄνω τόπους)—a stated aim of the campaign being to ensure the loyalty of the symmachoi they still maintained, and to bring back into the fold others who had been forced to make terms with the enemy through fear (Diod. Sic. 20.59.1–4). Combined with the implications of our limited, though indicative, literary evidence for an early conquest of the city, the likelihood, therefore, is that Hecatompylus was linked to Carthage via a pact of ‘alliance’ resembling tributary status from some early stage,Footnote 37 possibly in the middle of, or late in, the fifth century.Footnote 38

From brief notes in Polybius and from a Constantinian excerpt of Diodorus, we know that Hecatompylus revolted from the Carthaginians during the First Punic War but was subdued by the general Hanno ‘the Great’ without the use of excessive force, something that gained him a reputation for goodwill (Polyb. 1.73.1; Diod. Sic. 24.10.1–2). Individually, the literary sources are of limited utility in dating the event referred to—though the context of Polybius’ passage makes it clear that the revolt had taken place before the outbreak of the Mercenary War (241–237), in which Hanno was enrolled as a general to combat partially on the strength of the reputation he had gained from his subduing of Hecatompylus. Usually, Hanno’s campaign is estimated to have taken place c.247 (at the earliest),Footnote 39 something which stems from the position of the Diodorus fragment in the Constantinian collection of excerpts which preserves it.

3.1. (Re)dating the revolt

Collections of historical excerpts were compiled for the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in the tenth century a.d. Footnote 40 Specifically, the reference to the African Hecatompylus’ revolt comes from the Excerpta de uirtutibus et uitiis, the second of four such collections relevant to Diodorus (Const. Exc. 2.1, 260–1).Footnote 41 The Loeb text of Walton preserves the ‘long-familiar numbering of the fragments, by book, chapter, and paragraph, as found’ in Dindorf’s (1866–8) edition of Diodorus.Footnote 42 In dating the revolt passage (Diod. Sic. 24.10), Walton also looked to the passage describing the revenge of Regulus’ widow on Carthaginian prisoners (24.12) which follows it directly in the Excerpta de uirtutibus. As the passages preceding and following these two can be dated,Footnote 43 the date range for both events is set at 247–241.Footnote 44 It is notable, however, that Walton considers 24.12 as ‘certainly belong[ing] earlier’ than it appears in Dindorf’s (and subsequently his own) edition, preferring a date closer to 247. In reality, both dates are probably too late, even though Walton assumes that the Constantinian excerpts ‘appear to reflect the original order [of Diodorus’ work] with complete fidelity’.Footnote 45

Errors in chronology may well have slipped in over the long history of these collected fragments, and Walton is right to note that ‘nothing in the extant portion of the book suggests that Diodorus included the familiar story of Regulus’ embassy’,Footnote 46 meaning that his death may have come closer to the time of his defeat in Africa in 255 than later tradition invents by his returning to Rome prior to meeting his end voluntarily at Carthage. Indeed, the story of Regulus’ death which we have from Diodorus, as relayed by Tzetzes,Footnote 47 is placed by Dindorf (and Walton) in Book 23, immediately following his defeat in Africa in 255 (Diod. Sic. 23.15). Given that this latter passage (23.15) appears only two pages before the excerpts mentioning Hecatompylus’ revolt (24.10) and Regulus’ widow (24.12) in the Constantinian collection,Footnote 48 a minor reordering of both passages to Book 23 would make them a logical continuation of the story of Regulus’ demise and the failure of his African enterprise in 255. In this more fitting context, both passages contribute something to the story:

  1. (1) Diod. Sic. 24.10.1–2 (= Goukowsky XXIV fr. 12 and fr. 13): when placed after Regulus’ defeat, the account of Hanno’s expedition to Hecatompylus now reads like a follow-up to events in Africa. In 256, Appian tells us, 200 African towns had joined Regulus’ side and rebelled against Carthage (Pun. 3.11).Footnote 49 A clearly widespread event, Hecatompylus may have seceded because their distance from Carthage would make retaliation more difficult. With operations against the rebellious cities in the north being prosecuted by one Hamilcar (Oros. 4.9.9), Hanno’s inland march with his newly freed up army may be read as another branch of the operation to restore order after the expulsion of the Roman army from the continent.

  2. (2) Diod. Sic. 24.12 (= Goukowsky XXIV fr. 16): placed next, the account of the revenge of Regulus’ widow on the unfortunate captured Carthaginians, Hamilcar and Bodostor,Footnote 50 is the logical narrative follow-up to the Roman expedition’s defeat and the death of its general in Africa, as well as what transpires in Italy after news of it has reached Rome.

3.2. Hanno ‘the Great’

Support for this revised timeline can be found by tracing (so far as is possible) the career of Hanno ‘the Great’—the subduer of Hecatompylus.Footnote 51 We know through Polybius that Hanno was the hyparchos of Africa in 241, in which capacity he dealt with the complaints of the mutinous army which would launch the Mercenary War (1.67.1). He later took command of state forces in the opening stages of the conflict owing to his previous success at Hecatompylus (1.73.1).Footnote 52 The animosity of the mutinous army to Hanno in particular and his failure to gain their trust during negotiations are interesting details (1.67.13). The rebel leader of the Libyan contingents, Mathos, convinced his companions that the Carthaginians likely intended to punish them harshly as a demonstration to all their Libyan subjects (1.69.7). Probably, Mathos was referring back to what was according to Appian one of the prime motivations for their revolt—the crucifixion of 3,000 Libyans at some prior stage for having ‘gone over to the Romans’ (Sic. 2.8). Quite possibly, these are the very same 3,000 that Hanno had taken as hostages from Hecatompylus (Diod. Sic. 24.10.2); he may have made an example of them to the rest of Libya for partaking in the uprising, which had been so effectively timed with the Roman invasion in 256/255.Footnote 53 In fact, such a policy fits well with what we know of how order was restored in other parts of the African hegemony after 255. Reprisals against the Numidians and the Mauritanians were conducted by a commander called Hamilcar, and he procured fines of 1,000 talents and 20,000 cattle as punishment for aid given to Regulus,Footnote 54 but chose, more harshly, to impale their leaders (Oros. 4.9.9).Footnote 55

If Hanno oversaw a large portion of Carthage’s African army in the 250s, we should expect to find him mentioned in some of our sources for the period, and indeed we might. According to Polybius, the commanders who were defeated by Regulus’ expeditionary force were a Hasdrubal (son of a Hanno) and a Bostar (1.30).Footnote 56 Yet, following their defeat, the ‘most esteemed’ (πρῶτος ὢν τῇ δόξῃ) man then in Carthage was one Hanno, son of Hamilcar, and it was he who was sent with two of his peers to parlay with Regulus (Diod. Sic. 23.12).Footnote 57 This Hanno is most likely ‘the Great’. His esteem (calculated either according to wealth or according to the number of offices he held) would result in his appointment to the office of the African hyparchos, which we later find him occupying in 241.Footnote 58 Following the breakdown of negotiations, the Carthaginians famously appointed the Spartan general Xanthippus to supreme command of their armies, an office he filled so effectively that he vanquished the Roman army and captured Regulus.Footnote 59 Following Xanthippus’ departure from Africa, however, it is less clear to whom the command passed, though a force was dispatched to besiege Aspis in 255—the prosecution of which operation was at length abandoned (Polyb. 1.36.6–7). Plausibly, Hanno was the new commander of the Carthaginian army in Africa—a natural choice after Hasdrubal’s failure and the departure of Xanthippus. Indeed, there were apparently two individuals named Hanno in command of the army in 255 during its face-off against the Roman rescue fleet at Aspis, one of whom is probably our man (Oros. 4.9.7).Footnote 60

Placing the siege of Hecatompylus immediately following these events, we now find Hanno ‘having an unoccupied army at his command’ (ἔχων δύναμιν σχολάζουσαν) logically choosing to march against the cities which had rebelled the year prior, including this large and prominent city inland (Diod. Sic. 24.10.1). This campaign cannot have lasted more than a couple of months, since the news of a Roman disaster at sea shortly afterwards impelled the Carthaginians to send a force to Sicily in 255 under Hasdrubal with the ‘soldiers that they had [in Africa]’, some additional forces previously joined from Heraclea, and 140 elephants (Polyb. 1.38). That the elephants sent to Sicily were the same which had helped to destroy the Roman army in Africa is possible—we are at least told that the Romans were terrified of engaging elephants in battle after hearing about the role these creatures played in crushing the African expedition (1.39.11–14). In any case, the necessary shortness of Hanno’s campaign fits nicely with what we are told of it by Diodorus: that Hecatompylus begged forgiveness for its transgressions; and that it surrendered without the need for an assault (24.10). Hanno was not sent to Sicily with the army and was instead left in charge of a new and punitive tax-regime in Africa for the remainder of the war (Polyb. 1.72.1–4).Footnote 61 As African hyparchos, he may have had some level of military oversight of the operations, led by Hamilcar, against the Numidians (see above). Polybius later tells us that Hanno was accustomed to the hit-and-run war tactics of the Numidians and Libyans (1.74.7).

4. HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DISCUSSION

The expedition of Regulus and its aftermath in 256/255 is the most convincing context for the revolt of the African Hecatompylus, despite the ordering of the Constantinian fragments which would appear to place it in the 240s. It is a plausible, though hypothetical, scenario, therefore, that Trogus’ narrative of events in the east contained a muddled reference to this African revolt, here confused either with the rebellion of Andragoras (which in reality took place a decade or more later, most likely initiated from his base at the Parthian Hecatompylus) or with Arsaces’ capture of the city afterwards—the similarity of the names of the attacking armies of the Poeni and Parni against a rebel city of the same name perhaps adding to the befuddlement.Footnote 62 The correct dating of the Parthian affair to the reign of Seleucus II must ultimately have derived from a source, such as Apollodorus, who had a tighter grasp on the ordering of events in the east, even if accessed by Trogus only through an intermediate text. As for the origin of the erroneous consular date, no amount of careful source parsing may attribute it definitively to either one of Justin, Trogus, or an underlying source; yet an interpolation of the epitomator’s can probably be safely discounted, for his abridged account does not know the name Hecatompylus. Of the remaining possibilities (Trogus or an underlying source), it seems to me, for the reasons set out below, that the latter case is more likely—especially if the underlying source in question is Timagenes (BNJ 88), a historian whom we may be catching making a similar mistake elsewhere.Footnote 63

4.1. Trogus and Timagenes

The tremendous scale of Trogus’ work—the only pre-Christian universal history in Latin—is signalled by the fuller title we find at the head of the prologues: Liber Historiarum Philippicarum et totius mundi origines et terrae situs.Footnote 64 What the ‘Philippic’ element of the title was intended to say about the œuvre as a whole is still contested, although most likely it refers to the title of the fourth-century history of Theopompus of Chios (BNJ 115), a contemporary of Philip II and a probable source for the sections of Trogus concerning Philip and Alexander.Footnote 65 What is clear is that Trogus’ history was modelled after his many Greek predecessors in writing universal history, including Theopompus, Timaeus, Ephorus, Polybius and Posidonius.Footnote 66 It is often also suspected that Trogus owed much to his older contemporary, the famous intellectual Timagenes of Alexandria, who wrote a kind of universal history in Greek entitled On Kings.Footnote 67 Although the once popular view that Trogus’ Philippic History was little more than a Latin translation of On Kings has now been discounted,Footnote 68 Timagenes is still regarded by many scholars as one of Trogus’ main sources and, most probably, he exerted some influence on the style and shape of his work.Footnote 69 Trogus’ interest in the origins of peoples as well as of kings and their dynasties is a testament to that.Footnote 70

The esteem for Timagenes’ work long outlived him, as the distribution of his surviving fragments attests across the historical works of Pliny (HN 3.132, 33.118), Josephus (Ap. 2.83–4; AJ 13.319, 13.344), Plutarch (Vit. Pomp. 49.7), Curtius Rufus (9.5.21) and Ammianus Marcellinus (15.9.2–8, 15.10.9, 15.12.1–4). The latest of these, Ammianus, writing in the fourth century a.d., depended on Timagenes apparently exclusively for his history of the Gallic people, trusting in him as ‘a true Greek in accuracy as well as language, [who] collected out of various books these facts that had been long forgotten’ (15.9.2, transl. Rolfe).Footnote 71 Given Timagenes’ wide coverage, it is likely that he was used elsewhere in Ammianus, too. Although the passage below has not to my knowledge been associated with Timagenes before, it is curious to see a mistake of precisely the kind we have been discussing above occurring—and concerning the same African Hecatompylus, no less—in Book 17 of Ammianus’ History, where his reference to a Carthaginian campaign against the Egyptian Thebes (nicknamed Hecatompylus) is a clear blunder for Theveste (Amm. Marc. 17.4.2–3):

urbem priscis saeculis conditam, ambitiosa moenium strue et portarum centum quondam aditibus celebrem, hecatompylos Thebas, institutores ex facto cognominarunt, cuius uocabulo prouincia nunc usque Thebais appellatur. hanc inter exordia pandentis se late Carthaginis, improuiso excursu duces oppressere Poenorum, posteaque reparatam, Persarum rex ille Cambyses, quoad uixerat alieni cupidus et immanis, Aegypto perrupta aggressus est, ut opes exinde raperet inuidendas, ne deorum quidem donariis parcens.

The city of Thebes, founded in primitive times and once famous for the stately structure of its walls and for the hundred approaches formed by its gates, was called by its builders from that feature Hecatompylos, or Hundred-Gated Thebes; and from this name the province is to this day called the Thebaïd. When Carthage was in its early career of wide expansion, Punic generals destroyed Thebes by an unexpected attack; and when it was afterwards rebuilt, Cambyses, that renowned king of Persia, all his life covetous of others’ possessions, and cruel, overran Egypt and attacked Thebes, in the hope of carrying off therefrom its enviable wealth, since he did not spare even gifts made to the gods. (transl. Rolfe)Footnote 72

On the basis of what we know of the author’s biography and his attitude to Rome, it is in fact entirely likely that Timagenes was Ammianus’ source here. Timagenes was, according to the Suda, the son of a royal Ptolemaic money exchanger, possibly a native Egyptian (rather than a Greek), and had been taken to Rome as a hostage by the general Aulus Gabinius in 55 before he was purchased by Pompey’s son Faustus (BNJ 88 T1). After passing through the households of many of Rome’s great men, including Mark Antony, as a teacher, he entered into the service of Octavian, the future Augustus, probably as an adviser on Egyptian affairs, but eventually fell out with the emperor for his outspokenness and was barred from his house.Footnote 73 His hostility to Rome and Roman imperialism is clear from notices in the works of the Senecas,Footnote 74 and it must be that such feelings were influenced both by the fall of the Ptolemaic dynasty and by the demise of his old patron Mark Antony—all of which may be at the root of his falling out with Octavian. It is worthy of note, therefore, that the hostility shown towards Cambyses as a foreign invader and a tyrant covetous of Egypt’s wealth in Ammianus (17.4.3) is followed directly by a description of the plundering through ‘extensive embezzlements’ (plurimis interceptis) of Egyptian Thebes by the procurator of Augustus’ appointment, Cornelius Gallus (17.4.4).Footnote 75 Even though Gallus was eventually recalled to Rome in disgrace,Footnote 76 we can perhaps sense a jab at Octavian here, or at least Rome more generally, if this information has come from Timagenes who would no doubt be critical of the invasion of his homeland and the administration which had presided over the downfall of his native Ptolemaic regime.Footnote 77 And indeed, if we can sense the pen of Timagenes here, then this passage would also be proof of his ignorance of a city called Hecatompylus in Punic North Africa—a reference to which in an account of Carthage’s early territorial conquests on the continent he has mistaken for an attack on the Egyptian Thebes. In his haste to include Rome’s most infamous historical enemy in his scathingly comparative account of his own country’s woes, he has failed to check his sources properly.

Timagenes started his work On Kings following his expulsion from Augustus’ house, after which he lived with Asinius Pollio at Tusculum till his death—probably in the last years of the millennium.Footnote 78 During this time, Timagenes had unbridled access to Pollio’s literary circle and an enviable breadth of written sources.Footnote 79 That he wrote of the Parthians with some interest is indisputable, and it is often thought on this account that Livy’s remark about the ‘most foolish of the Greeks’ (leuissimi ex Graecis) who praised Parthia at Rome’s expense, and who doubted whether the latter state could have overcome Alexander the Great, refers to Timagenes (9.18.6 = BNJ 88 T9).Footnote 80 That he knew about the Parthian Hecatompylus also seems apparent, as it is known to his ‘protégé’ Strabo (11.9.1).Footnote 81 And so, it will have been in Italy during his writing of On Kings, certainly while consulting Roman sources for the third century,Footnote 82 that Timagenes picked up his erroneous consular date for the rebellion of the Parthian Hecatompylus when he tripped up over a notice referring to quite a different event taking place in the west but within the rough span of years of Arsaces’ ascent—a mistake no less plausible than the one we may be catching a whiff of in the conflation of the Egyptian and Algerian cities of this name in Ammianus (17.4.2–3).

If, like his predecessor Polybius (another famous captive intellect who took to research), Timagenes decided to consult Rome’s official records, it may have been here that he chanced upon the conflated information.Footnote 83 The original source for 256/255, in any case, must have been without sufficient context for Timagenes to grasp what was going on. Possibly most of what he found there is preserved in Justin, which is only that the event occurred in Regulus’ consulship during the First Punic War (Epit. 41.4.3). Short notices to individual events were probably to be found in the enigmatic chronicle, the Annales Maximi—the record of important events and prodigies kept by the Pontifex Maximus which Cicero blames for imparting a thin and sparse style of writing on the early Roman authors who he says consulted them (De or. 2.12.52–3; cf. Leg. 1.6).Footnote 84 According to Servius, the records were headed with the names of the pontifex, the consuls and other magistrates, and the information included ‘things worthy of mention which had been done at home and abroad, by land and sea, day by day’.Footnote 85 The records for the consulship of M. Atilius Regulus in 256/255 must have mentioned his African expedition, and it is quite possible that on a separate line Hecatompylus’ revolt, as a large city which had thrown its weight behind Rome, was also mentioned, but Timagenes failed to connect the two and misidentified the city in question. However it may have come about, Timagenes’ mistake (if it was his) will have evidently passed into Trogus’ work and survived the epitomization of Justin, albeit, unfortunately, without the name ‘Hecatompylus’ which has obfuscated the origin of the mistaken date, and without which we can have no definitive proof of the theory.

5. CLOSING REMARKS

The theory espoused by more than one scholar that the double date for the revolt of the Parthians in the forty-first book of the Epitome is in effect a clumsy attempt by either Justin or Trogus at a synchronization of thematically parallel events in east and west (that is, between the birth of the Parthian state and Rome’s first landing on the African continent) is hard to accept,Footnote 86 not because this is the only place where such a synchronism is attempted, but because the events bear no resemblance or relevance to each other, and because this is in fact the only place anywhere in the text of Justin where a precise consular date is given.Footnote 87 It is also clear that the originator of the erroneous date has more than just the consular year in mind when talking about the first revolt of the Parthians, and is thinking specifically about the context of the First Punic War (… defecere primum primo Punico bello, Epit. 41.4.3). This strange formulation badly needs explanation.

As no obvious parallel can be taking place between events in the east and west this year, it seems to me a more probable explanation, though hypothetical, that the error originates in a simple confusion over the name Hecatompylus, possibly encountered by Trogus’ source Timagenes in a Roman text mentioning the revolt of Theveste and the context of Regulus’ expedition in 256, and conflated with an event which occurred during Arsaces’ rise to power—much of the action of which must have taken place around Hecatompylus in Parthia, including Andragoras’ satrapal revolt and his defeat by Arsaces, a description of which quickly follows in Justin’s narrative (Epit. 41.4.7). Although the mistake could have been made by Trogus himself, a confusion between two cities called Hecatompylus is more likely to have come from his source Timagenes because, as the probable originator of Ammianus’ similar error in Book 17, he was clearly ignorant of an Algerian city of this name. This is a more plausible solution, at any rate, for Justin’s confused dating than an attempted synchronization of quite different events in the east and west, and it also explains why a Roman consular year is provided and the First Punic War mentioned for context. All this, of course, works in favour of a ‘low’ chronology for the Parthian secession which places the revolt of Andragoras a decade later, c.245, and the invasion of Arsaces I during the War of the Brothers c.239–236.

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Brian McGing and Shane Wallace for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this article. I am also grateful for, and wish to acknowledge, the helpful suggestions of all three anonymous reviewers, and the work of the CQ editorial team in bringing this article to its finished state. All translations are my own, except where indicated otherwise.

References

1 Translation in J.C. Yardley, Justin. Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, Volume II: Books 21–44 (Cambridge, MA and London, 2024)—brackets my own.

2 G.R.F. Assar and M. Ghassem Bagloo, ‘An early Parthian victory coin’, in Parthica: incontri di culture nel mondo antico 8 (2006), 25–35, at 27; R. Strootman, ‘The coming of the Parthians: crisis and resilience in the reign of Seleukos II’, in K. Erickson (ed.), The Seleucid Empire, 281–222 BC: War within the Family (Swansea, 2018), 129–50, at 134–5.

3 See D. Musti, ‘Syria and the East’, in F.W. Walbank et al. (edd.), The Cambridge Ancient History VII.1: The Hellenistic World (Cambridge, 19842), 175–220, at 213–16, 219–20 (favouring a ‘high’ dating); but cf. the effective response by K. Brodersen, ‘The date of the secession of Parthia from the Seleucid Kingdom’, Historia 35 (1986), 378–81 arguing for a ‘low’ dating. See also F.L. Holt, Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria (Berkeley, 1999), 55–66; the revised examination of the classical sources by M.J. Olbrycht, Early Arsakid Parthia (ca. 250–165 B.C.) (Leiden, 2021), 126–38; and P. McKechnie, ‘War of the Brothers: the contested coalescence of Seleukid statehood in mid-third century Asia Minor’, in E. Anagnostou-Laoutides and S. Pfeiffer (edd.), Culture and Ideology under the Seleucids: Unframing a Dynasty (Berlin, 2022), 131–50, at 134–5. Assar and Ghassem Bagloo (n. 2), 31 contend that Seleucus II may have first campaigned ‘as his father’s viceroy of the Upper Satrapies’ between 250–248 prior to Andragoras’ rebellion, which they place in 246/245.

4 For Xanthippus, see A.M. Hill, ‘Hamilcar of Barce? Discerning Barcid proto-history and Polybius’ mixellēnes’, JHS 140 (2020), 69–105, especially 99–100.

5 Holt (n. 3), 63. See, however, Justin’s synchronization of Dionysius I’s exile with the fall of Athens to Sparta and the death of Darius II in 405/404 (Epit. 5.8.7; see R. Mairs, ‘Central Asian challenges to Seleucid authority: synchronism, correlation, and causation as historiographical devices in Justin’s Epitome of Trogus’, in P.J. Kosmin and I.S. Moyer [edd.], Cultures of Resistance in the Hellenistic East [Oxford, 2022], 231–45, at 233). Most synchronisms in Justin are evocative (e.g. the same-year deaths of Hannibal, Scipio and Philopoemen found elsewhere: Epit. 32.4.9; see also Polyb. 23.12–14; Diod. Sic. 29.18–21; Livy 39.50.10–11), or framed in clear contrast (e.g. the Peace of Antalcidas coming into effect the year Rome is sacked: Epit. 6.6.5). See J.C. Yardley (transl.) and W. Heckel (commentary), Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Volume I: Books 11–12: Alexander the Great (Oxford, 1997), 27 for other examples.

6 The possibility that the fault lies in an interpolation, presumably of Justin’s, has been argued for on the basis that this is the sole instance of a precise consular date in the Epitome (Brodersen [n. 3], 380). Yet see my arguments below. For the relationship between Justin and Trogus, see J.C. Yardley, Justin and Pompeius Trogus. A Study of the Language of Justin’s Epitome of Trogus (London, 2003); B. Bartlett, ‘Justin’s Epitome: the unlikely adaptation of Trogus’ world history’, Histos 8 (2014), 246–83.

7 Jerome claims Theveste (modern Tébessa) was originally founded as ‘Thebes’ by the god Liber (Comm. in Pauli Epist. ad Galatas 2). Mover’s identification of it with the Heraclean foundation of ‘Hecatompylus’ (or ‘Hecatontapylus’) in Diodorus (4.18.1, 24.10.1–2) and Polybius (1.73.1) has found universal acceptance: F.K. Movers, Die Phönizier, 2 vols (Berlin, 1850), 2.2.518–19 n. 207; G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, 4 vols (Florence, 1967–82), 3.1.179 n. 79; S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord, 7 vols (Paris, 1918–28), 2.95–6 n. 8; F.W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols (Oxford, 1957–79) (henceforth, HCP), 1.137–9; P. Goukowsky (transl.), Diodore de Sicile. Bibliothèque historique. Fragments. Tome II. Livres XXI–XXVI (Paris, 2006), 261 n. 104; D. Hoyos, Truceless War: Carthage’s Fight for Survival, 241 to 237 BC (Leiden, 2007), 16 n. 5. Hecatompylus (ἑκατόμπυλοι) (i.e. the ‘Hundred-Gated’) is also a Homeric epithet famously attached to the Egyptian Thebes to differentiate it from the ‘Seven-Gated’ (ἑπτάπυλοι) Boeotian Thebes (Il. 9.381–4, 4.406). Recognition of the shared name in antiquity manifested in a temple of Ammon (patron god of Egyptian Thebes) at Boeotian Thebes (Paus. 9.16.1).

8 See below, pages 12–16.

9 See J.D. Lerner, The Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau: The Foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria (Stuttgart, 1999), 17, 29; G.R.F. Assar, ‘Parthian calendars at Babylon and Seleucia on the Tigris’, Iran 41 (2003), 171–91, at 176; G.R.F. Assar, ‘Genealogy and coinage of the early Parthian rulers I’, Parthica 6 (2004), 69–93, at 77 with n. 62 for older scholarship; N.L. Overtoom, ‘The power-transition crisis of the 240s BCE and the creation of the Parthian state’, The International History Review 38 (2016), 984–1013, at 993; Olbrycht (n. 3), 162. The coronation took place at Asaak in Astauene (‘probably modern Quchan’), where the Parthians afterwards kept a shrine according to Isidorus (BNJ 781 F2; see D.W. Roller’s 2008 BNJ commentary and Brodersen [n. 3], 381).

10 Andragoras seems to have declared independence c.245, and his must be the rebellion which, according to Appian, took place in the immediate context of the outbreak of the Third Syrian War (246–241) (Syr. 65.346). See J. Wolski, Seleucid and Arsacid Studies: A Progress Report on Developments in Source Research (Cracow, 2003); Overtoom (n. 9), 994; N.L. Overtoom, Reign of Arrows: The Rise of the Parthian Empire in the Hellenistic Middle East (Oxford, 2020), 77–8, 81–3; Olbrycht (n. 3), 74; Mairs (n. 5), 240; cf. A. Coşkun, ‘The War of the Brothers, the Third Syrian War, and the Battle of Ankyra (246–241 BC): a re-appraisal’, in K. Erickson (ed.), The Seleucid Empire, 281–222 BC: War Within the Family (Swansea, 2018), 197–252, at 201, 231, who puts Andragoras’ defeat (by the joint forces of Seleucus II and Arsaces) in 247/246—Strootman (n. 2) also sees Arsaces I as working with the Seleucids as a vassal.

11 Brodersen (n. 3), 379; though see now Coşkun (n. 10), who argues that the war with Hierax began as early as 246 and was over by 241. On the War of the Brothers, see also McKechnie (n. 3). Arsaces I may have first been repulsed by the Bactrians before turning his attention to Andragoras in the west (Strabo 11.9.2–3): see J. Gaslain, ‘Some aspects of political history: early Arsacid kings and the Seleucids’, in S.C. Vesta et al. (edd.), The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion (Oxford, 2016), 3–7, at 3; Overtoom (n. 9), 994; Overtoom (n. 10), 83–4.

12 The satrap is mistakenly called Pherecles by Photius (BNJ 156 F30a)—possibly a ‘subsatrap of Astauene’ (see Olbrycht [n. 3], 73 n. 3; after A. von Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer von Alexander dem Großen bis zum Untergang der Arsakiden [Tübingen, 1888], 31)—but Agathocles by Syncellus (BNJ 156 F31). That the latter was apparently a satrap of Bactria may indicate confusion with the second-century Bactrian king of that name (see D.W. Roller’s 2021 BNJ commentary). Andragoras, at any rate, is well attested in numismatic evidence (Olbrycht [n. 3], 77–8).

13 Overtoom (n. 9), 996–9; B. Chrubasik, Kings and Usurpers in the Seleukid Empire: The Men who would be King (Oxford, 2016), 43–4.

14 Assar’s examination of the faulty chronology of the late antique Armenian historian, Moses of Chorene, offers up equally discordant dates ranging from c.262 for Arsaces’ accession to Parthian rulership to a slew of possible dates for the Parthian rebellion between 256 and 249 depending on the dating system he was using (2.1–2): G.R.F. Assar, ‘Genealogy and coinage of the early Parthian rulers II’, Parthica 7 (2005), 29–63, at 32; G.R.F. Assar, ‘Moses Chorene and the early Parthian chronology’, Electrum 11 (2006), 61–86.

15 Olbrycht (n. 3), 133. Just. Epit. 12.4.12 mentions a Persian Andragoras appointed by Alexander from whom the later Parthian kings descended. Olbrycht (n. 3), 78–9 sees this not as an error of Justin’s but as potential evidence that the Arsacids sought dynastic ties to this house for legitimacy. On Arsaces, the satrap of Areia appointed by Alexander, see Arr. Anab. 3.25.7; Curt. 7.3.1; Olbrycht (n. 3), 166.

16 Amm. Marc. 23.6.2–3 mistakenly places the ascension of Arsaces in the reign of Seleucus I.

17 One solution sometimes proposed is to emend the name of one of the consuls from M. to C. Atilius Regulus bringing the date forward to 250: Holt (n. 3), 63; Assar (n. 14 [2006]), 67. Eusebius (Chron. 2) does, in fact, place the Parthian rebellion in Olympiad 132.3 (250/249), yet this is contradicted by Chron. 1, which places it in Olympiad 133 (248/247–245/244): Assar (n. 14 [2006]), 67. In any case, Olbrycht (n. 3), 163 has noted the possibility (if the earlier date of the two is correct) that it refers to conquests of Arsaces’ outside Parthia prior to his coronation at Asaak. Alternatively, Assar (n. 14 [2006]), 69–70 argues that 256/255 can be arrived at as the date for Arsaces’ accession from a revised reading of Moses of Chorene (2.1–2), yet there remains the lingering difficulty of why the Parthian era—supported by cuneiform tablets from Babylon, Greek epigraphic evidence and numismatic evidence—starts in 247.

18 Isidorus (BNJ 781 F2).

19 See E. Dąbrowa, ‘The political propaganda of the first Arsacids and its targets’, Studia Graeco-Parthica 10 (2008), 25–31, at 26 on early Parthian coinage. See G.M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India (London, 2013), 213 n. 6, s.v. ‘Hekatompylos’ on the question of a royal Seleucid mint at Hecatompylus. Pliny, too, is explicit that Hecatompylus is the capital city of the empire (HN 6.44). Ptolemy mentions a palace (Geog. 6.5.2). Cf. Amm. Marc. 23.6.43.

20 Parthyene, Astauene and Apavarktikene were regions situated within Parthia proper (see Olbrycht [n. 3], 113–14). Hecatompylus is identified with Shahr-e Qumis (see Olbrycht [n. 3], 207). Preliminary archaeological excavations at the site have been carried out, and a palace-like building was identified alongside other fortified structures: S.R. Hauser, ‘The Arsacid (Parthian) empire’, in D.T. Potts (ed.), A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Oxford, 2012), 1001–20, at 1007; Olbrycht (n. 3), 275.

21 Gaslain (n. 11), 5.

22 Overtoom (n. 10), 89.

23 Or perhaps slightly earlier—see Olbrycht (n. 3), 99, 162–3, 168, who claims that Arsaces I defeated Andragoras c.244/243.

24 Olbrycht (n. 3), 207.

25 Seleucus perhaps only renamed Hecatompylus. It was already a well-known and wealthy city during Alexander’s campaign (Curt. 6.2.15; Diod. Sic. 17.75.1; Cohen [n. 19], s.v. ‘Hekatompylos’; Olbrycht [n. 3], 27).

26 See Olbrycht (n. 3), 95, where the Seleucid mint at the Parthian capital of Hecatompylus is put forward as the place from which Andragoras minted his coins—another candidate for a mint in eastern Iran being Alexandreia in Areia. He cites Lerner (n. 9), 23 to support Hecatompylus as the most likely place (cf. Lerner [n. 9], 241). On Hecatompylus as the capital of Andragoras, see also Olbrycht (n. 3), 184–5.

27 Holt (n. 3), 60; Olbrycht (n. 3), 139–41. Strabo cites Apollodorus for the distance from the Caspian Gates to Hecatompylus (11.9.1 = BNJ 779 F5a). On the revolt of the Bactrians, see Strabo 11.11.1, 15.1.3. Apollodorus wrote between the late second and the middle of the first century b.c.: see D’Hautcourt’s 2010 commentary for BNJ 779 ‘Bibliographical Essay’; also, V.P. Nikonorov, ‘Apollodorus of Artemita and the date of his Parthica revisited’, in E. Dąbrowa (ed.), Ancient Iran and the Mediterranean World (Electrum 2) (Cracow, 1998), 107–22.

28 See below, pages 13–14. The mention of more than one Punic general and the apparently negative outcome of the attack for Hecatompylus in both Diod. Sic. 4.18.1 and Amm. Marc. 17.4.2–3 distinguish this earlier episode from Hanno’s third-century conquest, which ended on cordial terms (see below). On the Magonid fifth-century conquests, generally see G.C. Picard, C. Picard, D. Collon (transl.), The Life and Death of Carthage: A Survey of Punic History and Culture from its Birth to the Final Tragedy (New York, 1968), 86–91; D. Hoyos, The Carthaginians (London, 2010), 131–2; A.M. Hill, ‘The Libyan Wars: crisis, climate, and conflict in Carthaginian North Africa’ (Diss., Trinity College Dublin, 2023) (http://hdl.handle.net/2262/102982), 43–6.

29 See e.g. Picard, Picard, Collon (n. 28), 11; W. Huss, ‘Theveste’, in BNP (2006) (https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e1211240); Hoyos (n. 7), 18–19, 147–8; Hoyos (n. 28), 188–9; J.-P. Laporte and A. M’Charek, ‘Musulames’, Encyclopédie berbère 32 (2010) (http://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/670).

30 W. Huss, Geschichte der Karthager (Munich, 1985), 197.

31 Some settlements went over to Agathocles without compulsion ‘through hatred’ of Carthage; and while he was obliged to take some places by storm, others he successfully intimidated into compliance or managed to persuade (Diod. Sic. 20.17). See also S. Consolo Langher, ‘Agatocle in Africa: aree operative e implicazioni politiche fino alla pace del 306 a.C.’, Messana 13 (1992), 19–77, at 20.

32 G. Camps, ‘Dougga’, Encyclopédie berbère 16 (1995), doi: (http://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/2210).

33 Similarly, later at the three ‘Monkey Cities’ Eumachus’ policy was apparently one of diplomacy first, as, while he was forced to destroy one, he won over the other two peacefully (Diod. Sic. 20.58.6).

34 The named locations Eumachus encountered on his first march are Tocae, Phellinne, Meschela, Hippou Acra (not the same as Hippo Diarrhytus [modern Bizerte]) and Acris (Diod. Sic. 20.57.4–6). None bar Tocae (Dougga) is identifiable with any certainty (Huss [n. 30], 197–8; cf. Consolo Langher [n. 31], 46–8, who also believes Hippou Acra to be Hippo Regius, Algeria). Carthage’s authority over the areas traversed during this first march is indicated by Acris’ status as an ‘autonomous city’ (πόλιν αὐτόνομον), distinguishing it from its neighbours and thus probably a privilege granted by Carthage. It suffered especially harsh treatment by Eumachus (Diod. Sic. 20.57.6).

35 On Eumachus’ second expedition he ‘passed by’ (ὑπερβαλών) the places mastered on the first before coming to a place called Miltine where he suffered a defeat, coming thence over the mountains to the ‘Monkey Cities’ and from there back to ‘the regions by the sea’ (πρὸς τοὺς ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ τόπους) (20.58.1–6). Theories placing most or all of this action around coastal parts of eastern Algeria (L. Joleaud, ‘Le rôle des singes dans les traditions populaires nord-africaines’, Journal de la Société des Africanistes 1 [1931], 117–50, at 131; G. Camps, Massinissa ou les débuts de l’histoire. Libyca VIII.1 [Paris, 1960], 38, cited in Huss [n. 30], 197–8 n. 159) ignore the fact that Eumachus’ stated destination was the ‘inland regions of Libya’ (εἰς τοὺς ἄνω τῆς Λιβύης τόπους) (Diod. Sic. 20.58.1). Plausibly, the ‘Monkey Cities’ were somewhere inland near the modern border with Algeria (Gsell [n. 7], 3.52), or, by a toponymical reading, as far south as Capsa (O. Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager, 3 vols [Berlin, 1879], 1.529). Capsa, like Theveste, had a mythical foundation myth connecting it to a Libyan Heracles (Sall. Iug. 89.4; Oros. 5.15.8; W. Huss, ‘Capsa’, in BNP [2006] [https://doi-org.elib.tcd.ie/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e226800]).

36 Cf. Consolo Langher (n. 31), 23, 26, 40–2, 46–53.

37 Hoyos (n. 7), 18. Hecatompylus’ ‘allied’ status would also explain the absence of Punic material at the site from much before the third century; yet, as it stands, the only dateable materials are Carthaginian coins of the period between the fourth and third centuries from the megalithic necropolis of Gastel (E. Lipiński et al. [edd.], Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique [Turnhout, 1993], 442–3, s.v. ‘Tébessa’). Equivalent fifth-century evidence would hardly be found, as the first Carthaginian issues date only to the last years of the fifth century, and there was no mint at Carthage itself until the latter half of the fourth: G.K. Jenkins and R.W.B. Lewis, Carthaginian Gold and Electrum Coins (London, 1963), 20–6; P. Thonemann, The Hellenistic World: Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge, 2015), 103, 105.

38 By 415 Carthage had established a ‘great hegemony’ (μεγίστην ἡγεμονίαν, Diod. Sic. 12.83.6). This was severely challenged for the first time in 396 with a major revolt of symmachoi who besieged the city before supply shortages resulted in their dispersal (Diod. Sic. 14.77.1–6); see Hill (n. 28), 60–3.

39 See e.g. Walbank, HCP 1.137; Picard, Picard, Collon (n. 28), 11; Huss (n. 30), 246 n. 232; Goukowsky (n. 7), 131 n. 102; Hoyos (n. 7), 16; A. De Bonis, ‘Confine e articolazione del territorio amministrativo di Cartagine nella Tunisia antica’, in M.B. Cocco, A. Gavini, A. Ibba (edd.), L’Africa romana. Trasformazione dei paesaggi del potere nell’Africa settentrionale fino alla fine del mondo antico. Atti del XIX convegno di studio. Sassari, 16–19 dicembre 2010 (Rome, 2012), 189–210, at 198.

40 On the Byzantine Excerpta, see now A. Németh, The Excerpta Constantiniana and the Byzantine Appropriation of the Past (Cambridge, 2018).

41 T. Büttner-Wobst (ed.), Excerpta de uirtutibus et uitiis, pars I (Berlin, 1906) = Const. Exc. 2.1. The others are Excerpta de legationibus; de insidiis; and de sententiis (F.R. Walton [transl.], Diodorus Siculus. Library of History, Books 21–32 [Cambridge, MA and London, 1957], viii). The full corpus was published by Weidmann under the title Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta (Berlin, 1903–10) (Walton [this note], xv–xvi; see also Goukowsky [n. 7], x–xii).

42 L. Dindorf, Diodori Bibliotheca historica. Vol. IV (Leipzig, 1867). See Walton (n. 41), xv, xix. Goukowsky (n. 7) replaces chapter and line numbers with fr. numbers.

43 Diod. Sic. 24.5, referring to Hamilcar Barca’s accession to command in Sicily in 247; and 25.2.1, on the end of the First Punic War in 241.

44 Walton (n. 41), xx n. 2; cf. 135 n. 3.

45 Walton (n. 41), xx; cf. Goukowsky (n. 7), viii–ix.

46 Walton (n. 41), 139 n. 2.

47 Tzetz. Hist. 3.356–86 = Diod. Sic. 23.16. Though citing Diodorus directly, as Tzetzes appears to be writing from memory (e.g. he refers to Sicels rather than Carthaginians) and implies use of a second source, Goukowsky (n. 7) has chosen to omit this passage from his new edition (see xxix–xxxi).

48 Diod. Sic. 23.15 = Const. Exc. 2.1, 258–9 (excerpt 201). See Walton (n. 41), xix–xx n. 2, where 23.15 = Dindorf (n. 42), 23.14.3–4 and 15.

49 Cf. [Aur. Vict.] De uir. ill. 40, mentioning Regulus’ capture of 200 towns and 200,000 people.

50 The Punic name Bodastart. Not the ‘Vodoster’ who fought in Sicily with Hamilcar Barca in the 240s (Diod. Sic. 24.9.1), but identical with the ‘Bostar’ defeated by Regulus in 256 who was probably captured and sent to Rome (Polyb. 1.30), and therefore likely among the prisoners the Romans refused to surrender on the advice of Regulus in the legend of his embassy (Zonar. 8.15; Livy, Per. 18.7): see K. Geus, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager (Leuven, 1994), 20–1.

51 If the same Hanno ‘the Great’ in charge of the ‘Romanizing Party’ at Carthage at the end of the Second Punic War in 201 (App. Pun. 68.305)—there was another Hanno ‘the Great’ in the fourth century (Arist. Pol. 5.6.2, 1307a4; Just. Epit. 21.4, 22.3.6–9, Prolog. 20; Polyaenus, Strat. 5.11), so the name could reflect either a familial epithet (Hoyos [n. 7], 15 n. 3) or (less likely) the Punic title of Rab (Geus [n. 50], 106, 116)—then Hanno would be quite a young leading man in the 250s, which is not technically a problem. Hamilcar was only 28 when he took command in Sicily in 247, and his son Hannibal was still in his mid-twenties when he took over command in Spain in 221 (see Hill [n. 4], 89; Nep. Hann. 3.2; Geus [n. 50], 76–82).

52 Hanno was conceivably chosen to deal with the mercenary revolt because he was seen to have relevant experience, and to possess the right combination of diplomatic skill and military nous to deal with a domestic war.

53 R. Bosworth Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians (London, 1894), 144 also places the crucifixions in 255. The disconnect between Hanno’s lenient treatment of Hecatompylus and his crucifixion of 3,000 hostages is lessened if these were not citizens of the city but Libyan rebels seeking asylum after the action around Aspis. Cf. the defeated Jugurtha’s peace terms in 109, which involved supplying grain and other goods, and 300 hostages and 3,000 deserters to Rome (Oros. 5.15.7).

54 Numidians had invaded in 256, causing more devastation to farmland than the Romans had (Polyb. 1.31.2–3).

55 Cf. Hamilcar Barca’s terms with the rebel mercenaries, of which host he initially sought only to punish its leaders (Polyb. 1.85.4–6). Possibly the Hamilcar referred to by Orosius is the naval commander who was recalled to Africa to help fight Regulus (Polyb. 1.30.1–2). He may have commanded some of the army which was defeated in 256 (Zonar. 8.13). Orosius’ mention of Mauretania, though probably implausibly far away to have offered any direct assistance to Regulus, perhaps indicates Hamilcar’s use of a fleet to combat them.

56 Bostar was probably captured by the Romans; see above, page 10.

57 Polybius also mentions the embassy sent to Regulus, but only says that they sent their most eminent men, giving no names (1.31.5).

58 For official pluralism and election based on wealth at Carthage, see Arist. Pol. 1273a21–1273b9.

59 See above, page 2.

60 We need not take seriously Orosius’ report of a significant Roman victory on land here, which resulted in a staggering 9,000 Carthaginian dead—Polybius mentions no land battle (Oros. 4.9.7; Polyb. 1.36.12). While some action on land is not implausible, and the Roman fleet probably succeeded in rescuing the survivors from Aspis and raiding the countryside (H.H. Scullard, ‘Carthage and Rome’, in F.W. Walbank et al. [edd.], The Cambridge Ancient History VII.2: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C. [Cambridge, 1989], 486–771, at 557; Geus [n. 50], 115 n. 660), we can detect here an ‘annalistic tradition of Roman land successes [contrived to] … counterbalance Regulus’ defeat’ (Walbank, HCP 1.96; cf. Zonar. 8.14; Eutr. 2.22.2; Livy, Per. 18.3).

61 Again, there is a disconnect here between Hanno’s lenient treatment of Hecatompylus and his characterization in Polybius as a cruel and overbearing administrator (Goukowsky [n. 7], 260 n. 103). Plainly Hanno, like Hamilcar Barca, was a man capable of both severity and leniency. Cf. Hamilcar’s readmission of deserters to his ranks (Polyb. 1.75.1–2) in contrast to his later execution of captives (1.82.1–2, 84.8). After the conclusion of the Mercenary War (241–237), Hamilcar committed terrible atrocities against the Micatani while campaigning in Numidia (Diod. Sic. 26.23). See Hill (n. 28), 173–4.

62 Although Justin’s text stresses the etymology of Parthi from the Scythian word for ‘exiles’ (Epit. 41.1.1), the name (A)parni would be apt for the tribe before they moved from their homeland around the Ochus River at the Hyrcanian border and would have been known to Latin authors from its Greek form, (A)parnoi, in Apollodorus’ text: see Olbrycht (n. 3), 114–19; Ptolemy, Geog. 6.10.2 (Parnoi); Strabo 11.9.2 (Aparnoi).

63 See pages 13–14.

64 J. Elliott, Ennius and the Architecture of the Annales (Cambridge, 2013), 241 n. 36; Bartlett (n. 6), 249.

65 Several other possible inferences for the title have been put forward, including a reminiscence of Cicero’s speeches against Marc Antony (his Philippics of 44 and 43); or even as referring to Alexander and his successors—all deriving their empire from Philip, and thus could be considered Philippicae. See Yardley and Heckel (n. 5), 24–5; A. Borgna, Ripensare la storia universale. Giustino e l’Epitome delle Storie Filippiche di Pompeo Trogo (Hildesheim, 2018), 34–6; J.C. Yardley (transl.), Justin. Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, Volume I: Books 1–20 (Cambridge, MA and London, 2024), xxx–xxxi, xxxiv.

66 Borgna (n. 65), 155; Yardley (n. 65), xxxii.

67 See Yardley and Heckel (n. 5), 30–4.

68 A. von Gutschmid, ‘Trogus und Timagenes’, RhM 37 (1882), 548–55.

69 Borgna (n. 65), 19, 131–4, 215; Yardley (n. 65), xxxii–xxxv.

70 See ‘the several lists of kings and other rulers that are included in the prologi’ (Just. Prolog. 2, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 34, 37, 42) (Bartlett [n. 6], 255).

71 J.C. Rolfe (transl.), Ammianus Marcellinus. History, Volume I: Books 14–19 (Cambridge, MA and London, 1950).

72 See Meltzer (n. 35), 1.484; Gsell (n. 7), 2.96. Ammianus’ dating of the Carthaginian campaign to a time predating Cambyses (r. 530–522) is likewise false and arises from the stringing of these unrelated events together. While Malchus, a general who supposedly lived during Cyrus the Great’s reign (559–529) (Oros. 4.6.9; H. Dridi, ‘Early Carthage: from its foundation to the Battle of Himera (ca. 814–480 bce)’, in C. López-Ruiz and B.R. Doak [edd.], The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean [Oxford, 2019], 141–54, at 147), did campaign in Africa (Just. Epit. 18.7), this more likely refers to the colonization of Cap Bon, which archaeological evidence places under Carthage’s control from around this period (E. Fentress and R.F. Docter, ‘North Africa: rural settlement and agricultural production’, in P. van Dommelen and C. Gómez Bellard [edd.], Rural Landscapes in the Punic World [London, 2008], 101–28, at 112; Dridi [this note], 149). Carthage’s ‘early career of wide expansion’ fits better the period of the fifth-century Magonid conquests after the Punic capital successfully reneged on its ancient tribute to its Libyan neighbours and went on to wage war against the Numidians and Mauritanians (Just. Epit. 19.2.4; see Hill [n. 28], 41–4).

73 See BNJ 88 T2 (Sen. Controu. 10.5.21–2) and T3 (Sen. De ira 3.23.4–8). On Timagenes’ career, see Yardley and Heckel (n. 5), 31–3; and J. McInerney and D.W. Roller’s 2012 ‘Bibliographical Essay’ for BNJ 88.

74 BNJ 88 T8 (Sen. Ep. 91.13); and see above, n. 73. For Timagenes as Greek critic of Rome’s emerging Principate, see G.W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), 110; L. Capponi, ‘A disillusioned intellectual: Timagenes of Alexandria’, in P.R. Bosman (ed.), Intellectual and Empire in Greco-Roman Antiquity (London, 2018), 43–62, at 46–8.

75 Even prior to Octavian’s departure from Egypt, with the help of his army he accrued enormous amounts of wealth in royal and temple treasure, and demanded in addition two thirds of the property of private Alexandrians (Cass. Dio 51.17.6–8); see further H. Lindsay, ‘Strabo and Augustan Egypt’, SO 97 (2023), 129–53, at 130.

76 Cornelius Gallus was awarded with the prefecture of Egypt for his loyalty to Octavian (Suet. Aug. 66.1–2). His quelling of a revolt in the Thebaid in 30 is recorded in a trilingual inscription at Philae (OGIS 654). According to Strabo, the revolt broke out owing to the imposition of taxes. Gallus had also put down a revolt at Heroönpolis (Tell Mashkhutah) on the Suez isthmus (17.1.53) (Lindsay [n. 75], 130). He fell into disgrace when he was recalled by Octavian on his indictment on various charges and committed suicide (Cass. Dio 53.23.5–7).

77 Before Ammianus compares similar projects by Constantius, his information about Augustus’ transport of Egyptian obelisks to beautify Rome can plausibly have come from Timagenes (17.4.6–12). Timagenes resented Rome’s tendency to rebuild itself ever more magnificently following destructive fires (BNJ 88 T8 = Sen. Ep. 91.13), so its beautification with Egyptian obelisks would irk him. The act furthermore makes Augustus a more ready comparison to the temple-plundering Cambyses (17.4.3). That Ammianus’ text jumps straight from a criticism of Achaemenid to Roman Egypt also hints at an Alexandrian source. Alexander’s first governor of Egypt, Cleomenes, we read in Arrian, was infamously corrupt (Anab. 6–8; W. Heckel, Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire [Oxford, 2006], 88–9); and the Ptolemaic regime faced numerous revolts in the Thebaid starting from the later third century: see e.g. P.W. Pestman, ‘Haronnphris and Chaonnophris. Two indigenous pharaohs in Ptolemaic Egypt (205–186 bc)’, in S.P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (Leiden, 1995), 101–37; A. Véïsse, Les révoltes égyptiennes: recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III Euergète à la conquête romaine (Leuven, 2004); B.C. McGing, ‘Revolt Egyptian style. Internal opposition to Ptolemaic rule’, APF 43 (1997), 273–314; C. Fischer-Bovet, ‘Social unrest and ethnic coexistence in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid empire’, P&P 229 (2015), 3–45.

78 McInerney and Roller (n. 73), with T1 and T3 commentaries.

79 BNJ 88 T3. Asinius Pollio, an accomplished historian himself, was responsible for the construction of Rome’s first public library—the Atrium libertatis (Plin. HN 35.10).

80 Bowersock (n. 74), 109; Yardley and Heckel (n. 5), 31–3; cf. L. Capponi, ‘Timagenes, of Alexandria (1), Greek rhetor and historian’, OCD (2017) (doi: https://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6458); Capponi (n. 74), 50–1.

81 Bowersock (n. 74), 126–7; McInerney and Roller (n. 73). For Strabo’s use of Timagenes, see Joseph. Ap. 2.83–4; AJ 13.344; Strabo 4.1.13, 15.1.57 (= BNJ 88 F4, F6, F11, F12). Ammianus also knows the Parthian Hecatompylus (Amm. Marc. 23.6.43; cf. Strabo 11.8.9).

82 Apparently neither Timagenes nor Trogus read Polybius’ first book carefully, as the mention of Hanno’s attack on the ‘Hecatompylus in Libya’ should have avoided confusion (Polyb. 1.73.1). Yet 41.4.3 is, surprisingly, the Epitome’s only mention of the First Punic War. Polybius probably was used as a source for the messy period of Seleucid dynastic trouble in the mid second century covered in Justin’s Book 35 (cf. Polyb. 31.33; Diod. Sic. 31.32–32.10; Yardley and Heckel [n. 5], 30 n. 74), but the relationship between Polybius and Posidonius (who picks up his narrative and is a source for Book 36) makes Polybius’ identification less straightforward (L. Santi Amantini, Fonti e valore storico di Pompeo Trogo (Justin xxxv e xxxvi) [Geneva, 1972], 51; J.C. Yardley [transl.] and R. Develin [intro. and explan. notes], Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus [Atlanta, GA, 1994], 228 n. 1).

83 The priestly archives would be a logical place for a provincial historian to look for specific information on Roman history, particularly dates. Polybius consulted ‘the tablet kept in the possession of the high priests’ for the date of Rome’s foundation: see Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.74.3; Elliott (n. 64), 26. The propensity for errors in dating to arise from consulting sparse official records by careless historians is described by Dionysius Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 7.1.6; see B.W. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition [Ann Arbor, MI, 19992], 92).

84 See H. Beck, ‘The early Roman tradition’, in J. Marincola (ed.), A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, 2 vols (Oxford, 2007), 1.259–65, at 261–2 for discussion of Cicero’s claims.

85 Serv. on Verg. Aen. 1.372–3 (Serv. Dan.) = T. Cornell et al. (edd.), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols (Oxford, 2013), 2.12–13, T3. The existence of a pre-literary pontifical record is incontrovertible based on ancient testimonial evidence: see S.P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X. Vol. I: Introduction and Book VI (Oxford, 1997), 24–7; but the nature of the Annales Maximi to which Cicero refers is another debate. The original pontifical tabulae were whitewashed boards archived by the Pontifex Maximus. Genuine entries can only have dated back to c.400 and extended up to the time of Publius Mucius Scaevola (131–115), after which they were ‘published’ in 80 books (perhaps as late as Augustus) and are thus considered largely to be a later reconstruction of antiquarian interest (Frier [n. 83]; Cornell et al. [this note], 1.141–59; Elliott [n. 64], 24–6). Prodigies may have featured more prominently in the original archives, yet the ‘published’ version was probably added to, making it an important source for historical research (Cornell et al. [this note], 1.151–6). Timagenes would not be surprised, therefore, to come across an apparent inserted reference to the foundation of the Parthian state, which is described in Trogus as sharing rule over the world with Rome (41.1.1), at approximately the right place—though he blundered in his interpretation here.

86 T. Liebmann-Frankfort, ‘L’histoire des Parthes dans le livre XLI de Trogue Pompée’, Latomus 28 (1969), 894–922, at 899–902; Brodersen (n. 3), 380; Holt (n. 3), 63. See also Mairs’s explanation: ‘There is no direct connection between Roman and Seleucid affairs at this time, but Justin provides a chronological anchor with which his (Roman, Latin-literate) audience will have been more familiar, and presages the later rise to domination of Rome over the Seleucid Empire and other Hellenistic kingdoms.’ (Mairs [n. 5], 234)

87 Brodersen (n. 3), 380; Olbrycht (n. 3), 157. Consular dating is still possible where Justin names consuls casually in the narrative (e.g. Epit. 29.2.1, 30.4.8, 31.7.2, 34.2.1).