Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/552

 powers; which obviously suggests that, in the interval, changes had been effected in the position of the allies towards Carthage, which Utica alone had successfully resisted. It seems, in fact, that all these cities, except Utica, had been rendered tributary to Carthage, though preserving their municipal organization. Leptis Parva, for example, paid the enormous assessment of a talent a day, or 365 talents every year. (Liv. xxxiv. 62.) The period during which the change took place must have been that which followed the battle of Himera, when, induced by that defeat to abandon for a time her projects of further conquests in Sicily, she turned her attention to the consolidation of her power at home. As for Utica, to the very latest period of the existence of Carthage, she retained her separate political existence, in such a manner as to be able to side with Rome against Carthage, and to take her place as the capital of the new Roman province of Africa.

The temper in which Carthage used her supremacy over these allies is one of those points in her history on which we need the guidance of more impartial authorities than we possess. The Greek and Roman writers accuse her of arrogance and oppression; and we can easily believe that she pursued the selfish policy of a commercial aristocracy. In the hour of danger from the revolts of her African subjects, some of the chief Phoenician cities refused to abandon her; but their support may have been prompted by the motive of common safety. They were faithful to her cause in the Second Punic War, but in the Third most of them deserted her. Their fidelity in the former case is more to the credit of her rule than their ultimate defection is against it; for her cause in the final struggle was so hopeless, that self-interest is a sufficient motive for the course the pursued in abandoning her. But, even then, examples of fidelity were by no means wanting; and while the rewards obtained by Utica attest the selfish motives «f her defection, the severe penalties inflicted on the allies of Carthage show that her deepest danger had called forth proofs of attachment to her, which indicate better antecedents than mere oppression on the one side, and resentment on the other.

But however exaggerated the statements of her enemies may be, and however little their own conduct gave them the right to become accusers; to deny that they contain much truth would not only he contrary to the laws of evidence, but inconsistent with all we know of the maxims of government pursued by even the best of ancient states. The chief difficulty is to distinguish, in such statements, what refers to her Phoenician allies, and to her African subjects: the strongly condemnatory evidence of Polybius, for example, applies primarily to her treatment of the latter; though the former may possibly be included under the denomination of. (Polyb. L 72.) On the whole, we may suppose that the case of Leptis gives a fair example of that of the Phoenician allies; and that the chief hardship they endured was the exaction of a heavy tribute, which their commerce enabled them, however reluctantly, to pay.

4. Relations to the Peoples of Africa. — With respect to the native tribes, we must carefully observe the distinction, which is made both by Herodotus and Polybius, between those who had fixed abodes and who practised agriculture, and those who were still in the nomad state. This distinction is confirmed by the curious tradition already mentioned as preserved by Sallust (Jugurth. 18); but it is probably to be accounted for, not by referring the two peoples to a different origin, but by a regard to the different circumstances of those who roamed over the scattered oases of the desert and semi-desert regions, and those who inhabited the fertile districts in the valley of the Bagradas and the terraces above the N. coast. (Comp. and .) Herodotas distinctly assigns the river Triton, at the bottom of the Lesser Syrtis, as the boundary between the Libyans who were nomads, and those who had fixed abodes and tilled the land; the former extending from the confines of Egypt to the Lesser Syrtis, the latter dwelling in the districts afterwards known as Byzacium and Zeugitana, a portion of which districts formed tho original territory of Carthage. All these tribes are included by Herodotus under the general name of Libyans; the several peoples, whether nomad or agricultural, being called by their specific names, such as, , , , &c. The distinction runs through the whole Carthaginian history, although different names are used to mark it Polybius applies the name of Libyans to the immediate subjects of the Carthaginians and inhabitants of the original Carthaginian territory; while he designates the free people of Africa, who served in their armies as mercenaries, by the collective name derived from their mode of life, Nomads or Numidians; still calling each tribe by its proper name. That he does not, like Herodotus, distinguish those also whom he calls Libyans in general by the specific names of their tribes, may be taken as a proof Uiat their very names had been lost in their complete subjection to Carthage. The new position taken up by certain of these nomad tribes, under Masinissa and other chieftains, in the later period of the Punic Wars, gave a territorial sense to the Numidian name; but the primary distinction, which we have here to observe, was between the comparatively civilized tribes of Zeugitana and Byzacium, with fixed abodes and agricultural pursuits, whom Polybius calls Libyans, and the Nomad tribes who surrounded them on the E., the S., and the W.

a. The Libyans. — With the former the Carthaginians were of course brought into contact from there first settlement on the tongue of land, for which tradition assures us they paid a tribute to the Libyans even down to the time of Darius the son of Hystaspes (Justin xviii. 5). But such a relation could no more be permanent than the treaties of white men with American Indians. As they increased in strength, the Carthaginians not only ceased to pay the tribute, but reduced the Libyans to entire subjection. The former lords of the country, driven back from the coast and pent up in the interior, tilled the soil for the profit of their new masters, whether as tenants or still as nominal owners we know not, nor does it matter, for all that they might call their own was held at the mere pleasure of the sovereign state. They were subject to the caprice of Carthaginian officers, and to any exaction of money and men which the exigencies of Carthage might seem to demand. Their youth fanned the only regular army (as distinguished from mercenaries) which Carthage possessed; and, as a specimen of their taxation, they were made, in the first Punic War, to contribute fifty per cent on the produce of their land, while those of them who inhabited the cities had to pay twice their former amount of tribute. No respite or remission was given to the poor, but their persons were seized in default of payment. Their