Page:History of Greece Vol V.djvu/247

 SICILIAN AFFAIRS. — GELO AND HIS DYNASTY. 223 their principal colonies : ^ on the field of battle itself also, a mon- ument was raised to him by the Greeks. On that monument, seventy years afterwards, his victorious grandson, fresh from the plunder of this same city of Himera, offered the bloody sacrifice of three thousand Grecian prison ers.- We may presume that Anaxilaus with the forces of Rhegiura shared in the defeat of the foreign invader whom he had called in, and probably other Greeks besides. All of them were now compelled to sue for peace from Gelo, and to solicit the privilege of being enrolled as his dependent allies, which Asas granted to them without any harder imposition than the tribute probably involved in that relation.3 Even the Carthaginians themselves were so intimidated by the defeat, that they sent envoys to ask for peace at Syracuse, which they are said to have obtained mainly by the soli<'itation of Damarete, wife of Gelo, on condi- tion of paying two thousand talents to defray the costs of the war, and of erecting two temples in which the terms of the treaty were to be permanently recorded.-* If we could believe the asser- tion of Theophrastus, Gelo exacted from the Carthaginians a stipulation that they would for the future abstain from human ' Herodot. vii, 166, 167. Hamilkar was son of a Syracusan mother: a curious proof of connubium between Carthage and Syi'acuse. At the moment when the elder Dionysius declared war against Carthage, in 398 B.C., there were many Carthaginian merchants dwelling both in Syracuse and in other Greco-Sicilian cities, together with ships and other property. Dionysius gave license to the Syracusans, at the first instant when he had deteimined on declaring war, to plunder all this property (Diodor. xiv, 46). This speedy multiplication of Carthaginians with merchandise in the Gre- cian cities, so soon after a bloody war had been concluded, is a strong proof of the spontaneous tendencies of trade. ^ Diodor. xiii, 62. According to Herodotus, the battle of Himera took place on the same day as that of Salamis ; according to Diodorus, on the same day as that of Thermopylre. If we are forced to choose between the two witnesses, there can be no hesitation in preferring the former : but it seems more probable that neither is correct. As far as we can judge from the brief allusions of Herodotus, he must have conceived the battle of Himei-a in a manner totally different from Diodorus. Under such circumstances, I cannot venture to trust the details given by the latter. Diodorus, xi, 66 : at least it is difficult to understand what other " great benefit" Gelo had conferred on Anaxilaus. * Diodor. xi, 26.
 * I presume this treatment of Anaxilaus by Gelo must be alluded to in