¹ See Polyb. 10.10 for New Carthage, and 10.10.12 for the canal; on Polybius’ description, which contains some difficulties, see Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius. Volume 2 (Oxford, 1967), 205–11Google Scholar.

² Note, in particular: καθόλου μέν ἐστι τεναγώδης ἡ λίμνη καὶ βατὴ κατὰ τὸ πλεῖστον. Other sources place the ebb earlier, at midday: Livy 26.45.8; App. Hisp. 21.

³ Note also Livy 26.46.2: nam neque opere emunitus erat ut ubi ipsius loci ac stagni praesidio satis creditum foret, nec ulla armatorum statio aut custodia opposita intentis omnibus ad opem eo ferendam unde periculum ostendebatur.

⁴ For example, Zecchini, G., ‘Scipione in Spagna: un approccio critico alla tradizione Polibiano-Liviana’, in Urso, G. (ed.), Hispania terris omnibus felicior. Premesse ed esiti di un processo di integrazione (Pisa, 2014), 87–103Google Scholar, at 94–5; Zimmermann, K., ‘Roman strategy and aims in the Second Punic War’, in Hoyos, B.D. (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars (Malden, MA, 2011), 280–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 292; Schwarte, K.-H., ‘Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus der Ältere – Eroberer zwischen West und Ost’, in Hölkeskamp, K.-J. and Stein-Hölkeskamp, E. (edd.), Von Romulus zu Augustus. Große Gestalten der römischen Republik (Munich, 2000), 106–19Google Scholar, at 109–10; Richardson, J.S., The Romans in Spain (Oxford, 1996), 32Google Scholar and, earlier, Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism 218–82 b.c. (Cambridge, 1986), 47; Seibert, J., Hannibal (Darmstadt, 1993), 353–4Google Scholar, although the ebb, tide and wind are noted on pages 355–6 (in a section headed ‘Legenden’); Briscoe, J., ‘The Second Punic War’, in Astin, A.E. et al. (edd.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume VIII: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 b.c. (Cambridge, 1989 ²), 44–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 59.

⁵ Polyb. 10.14.2: ὁ δὲ Πόπλιος, προσδοκῶν ἤδη τὸν τῆς ἀμπώτεως καιρόν …; 10.14.7. This has been challenged for various reasons by, most notably of more recent work, Lillo, A. and Lillo, M., ‘On Polybius X 10,12 f.: the capture of New Carthage’, Historia 37 (1988), 477–80Google Scholar, but see Hoyos, B.D., ‘Sluice-gates or Neptune at New Carthage, 209 b.c.?’, Historia 41 (1992), 124–8Google Scholar, at 125 and also 127.

⁶ Livy 26.42.8, 26.45.7–8: nuntiatum est aestum decedere … medium ferme diei erat, et ad id, quod sua sponte cedente in mare aestu trahebatur aqua, acer etiam septentrio ortus inclinatum stagnum eodem quo aestus ferebat.

⁷ Scullard, H.H., Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War (Cambridge, 1930), 79–80Google Scholar, but understandably abandoning the idea; it does, however, resurface in his later book, Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician (London, 1970), 256 n. 41, where it is again abandoned, but only because ‘Livy's wind is sufficient explanation by itself’.

⁸ For example, Hoyos, B.D., Mastering the West: Rome and Carthage at War (Oxford, 2015), 175Google Scholar: ‘The likeliest reason [for the ebb] was a strong northerly wind that blew up toward evening (unless improbably Polybius, or Scipio himself, invented this tale, as some suspect)’, and, earlier, Hoyos (n. 5), 127–8, also retaining the tide as a cause; Rosenstein, N., Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 b.c. (Edinburgh, 2012), 162Google Scholar: ‘He knew that wind-action frequently caused the lagoon's water level to drop in the evening, making it fairly easy to wade across’; Edwell, P., ‘War abroad: Spain, Sicily, Macedon, Africa’, in Hoyos, B.D. (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars (Malden, MA, 2011), 320–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 323: ‘Aware that the beach on one side of the city was exposed at low tide, Scipio sent 500 men with scaling ladders to gain easy access from it to the tops of the walls’; Engels, D., Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v. Chr.). Quellen, Terminologie, Kommentar, historische Entwicklung (Stuttgart, 2007), 468Google Scholar follows Scullard, for whose influential views, see below; Rodríguez, D. Fernández, ‘La toma de Carthago Nova por Publio Cornelio Escipión: ¿leyenda o realidad?’, Polis 17 (2005), 31–72Google Scholar discusses the tide, among other factors, although he wants to play down its significance (66: ‘aunque la marea fuera de escasa entidad, las aguas pudieron haber retrocedido lo suficiente como para dejar un estrecho pasillo junto a la muralla’); Foulon, E., ‘Un miracle de Poséidon: Polybe X, 8–15’, REG 111 (1998), 503–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lazenby, J.F., Hannibal's War (Warminster, 1978), 136–7Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W., ‘The Scipionic legend’, PCPhS 193 (1967), 54–69Google Scholar, at 65: ‘On the whole … the incident sounds more like a wind phenomenon than a tide, despite Polybius’ use in X. 14. 2 and 7 of the word ἄμπωτις’; id. (n. 1), 194; see also n. 14 below.

⁹ For example, Walbank (n. 8), 65; id. (n. 1), 192; Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 55; Lazenby (n. 8), 136. The Mediterranean Pilot is frequently quoted: ‘there are no tides in Cartagena harbour’. Foulon (n. 8), 513, however, claims that tides do affect the region, altering the sea's depth by as much as half a metre; see Fernández Rodríguez (n. 8), 63–4 for a more conservative estimate.

¹⁰ Exodus 14:21; Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 77, 91; id. (n. 7 [1970]), 56, 62; id., A History of the Roman World 753 to 146 b.c. (London, 1980⁴), 501 n. 1; for more recent discussion, see the various works in n. 8 above.

¹¹ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 56–7 and (n. 7 [1930]), 77 offers several further examples of wind affecting water levels (see also Foulon [n. 8], 509–12, who adds a few more), but all of these involve bodies of water considerably larger than the lagoon at New Carthage, and Scullard again shows no interest in taking either the wind's strength or its duration into account. Similarly, Lazenby (n. 8), 136: ‘a north or north-east wind can lower the level of the sea near Cartagena by as much as 1.5 metres’ (my emphasis), and Hoyos (n. 5), 127: the winds ‘can change the level of sea in the harbour by nearly half a metre’. But how strong do these winds need to be, and for how long must they blow? Scullard treats the ebb at New Carthage as almost instantaneous: Scullard (n. 10), 226: ‘When the wading party was about to start, a squall from the north suddenly sprang up and lowered the level of the lagoon by driving the water into the bay’; id. (n. 7 [1970]), 62 and id. (n. 7 [1930]), 90–1: ‘Suddenly, as the sun began to decline [so here Scullard follows Polybius’ chronology], a squall from the north sprang up which forced the water from the lagoon to the sea [so here Scullard follows part of Livy's explanation for the ebb].’

¹² Livy 26.45.8 does describe the rising of the wind as acer.

¹³ Livy 26.45.8, although the orientation of the site is confused in Livy's (26.42.8) and in other ancient accounts; see Walbank (n. 1), 207–8. Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 77 n. 1 says: ‘If it is assumed that Livy's source followed a false orientation like Polybius, it would be an east wind. This however makes but little difference, as either of these winds would tend to force the water out of the lagoon.’ On the contrary, it could make a significant difference (see below), and would also rule out the possibility of the wind being a land breeze, and yet that possibility is crucial to explaining the alleged regularity of the ebb.

¹⁴ Lovejoy, J., ‘The tides of New Carthage’, CPh 67 (1972), 110–11Google Scholar argues that the water level dropped towards evening, when the sea breeze died down and the water it had blown into the lagoon (presumably up through the canal to the west of the city) flowed back out to sea; apart from the fact that this is the very opposite of what Livy says happened, the idea of sufficient water being blown from the sea, along the entire length of the canal, and into the lagoon to raise the water level of the lagoon enough to make it too deep to cross is somewhat implausible, even more so since the city and its walls would have sheltered the lagoon from Lovejoy's sea breeze.

¹⁵ Polyb. 10.13.6–8; Livy 26.45.2–3.

¹⁶ See n. 2 above.

¹⁷ See, for example, Walbank (n. 1), 206, 208; Lowe, B.J., ‘Polybius 10.10.12 and the existence of salt-flats at Carthago Nova’, Phoenix 54 (2000), 39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 41–2.

¹⁸ One cubic metre is 1,000 litres; if the water level dropped by only half a metre, over an area of just 100 square metres (0.5 x 100 x 100 = 5,000 m³), that comes to 5,000,000 litres. Following the map in Walbank (n. 1), 206, a crude estimate would put the lagoon at about 2,000 feet (so roughly 600 metres) across at its narrowest point, and about 8,000 feet (roughly 2,400 metres) near its widest (the map in Rosenstein [n. 8], 163 suggests that it was somewhat bigger, but, for the sake of the argument, the smaller figures will be used here). Without taking the irregularities of the lagoon's shape into account, that comes to an approximate surface area of 1,440,000 m². If it is assumed that the water was consistently deeper than 50 cm across this entire area, then a decrease in the lagoon's depth of 50 cm would mean that 720,000 m³, so 720,000,000 litres, of water would need to be moved. This estimate is obviously extremely crude, but it does serve to give some indication of the huge volume of water potentially involved.

¹⁹ Lillo and Lillo (n. 5). Accepting the views of Lillo and Lillo, Lowe (n. 17) argues, on purely circumstantial grounds, that the lagoon was used for the production of salt; hence the need for sluice-gates. If this were the case, however, the sluice-gates would have had to have served to let water into the lagoon, instead of out of it; once the lagoon was full, the gates would be closed and the water left to evaporate; opening the gates would only let more water in. Lowe's suggestion therefore deprives the sluice-gates of any usefulness for Scipio's operations and consequently undermines the very argument on which it is based.

²⁰ Hoyos (n. 5); also Foulon (n. 8), 506–7; Fernández Rodríguez (n. 8), 65–6; Engels (n. 8), 468. Lowe (n. 17), who accepts the idea of sluice-gates (see previous note), only directly addresses a few of Hoyos’ arguments (on pages 44–5), but leaves most of his objections unanswered. Even apart from all the other problems, Polybius’ silence is damning, since this is precisely the sort of thing he is likely to have taken an interest in (compare, for instance, Polyb. 21.27–8 on the devices used in the siege of Ambracia, in which he was clearly interested).

²¹ Walbank ([n. 1], 194; [n. 8], 66) suggests the morning attack was intended to exhaust the enemy; that is plausible enough, although, as far as physical exhaustion is concerned, there was perhaps too long a period of time between the first attack and the ebb, on Polybius’ chronology at least. Lazenby (n. 8), 137 suggests that the early attack was designed to put the Carthaginians off the scent, but that is less plausible; come evening, the possibility that Scipio might send men across the lagoon after its waters had ebbed ought to have been entertained, regardless of the morning's events.

²² Some such line of questioning can perhaps be inferred from what Polybius says at 10.8.6–7.

²³ Polyb. 10.14.13–14 does say that those who crossed the lagoon found the walls empty, as the defenders had been sent elsewhere; but that implies that they were once there. Scipio may have even been waiting, not for the ebb but for the men on the wall facing the lagoon to be called elsewhere.

²⁴ Cf. Lowe (n. 17), 49–50 (sluice-gates and salt-flats notwithstanding).

²⁵ Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 71 recognizes that this approach fixes all the problems in Polybius’ account, but rejects it none the less; he cannot accept that either Polybius or C. Laelius (one of Polybius’ sources; see below) could have produced a rationalized account of some miraculous story (72–4), and ‘it is inconceivable that the whole incident is without some basis in fact’ (74); see also Walbank (n. 8), 66: the difficulties in the story ‘would of course disappear if the whole story of the ebb were an invention. But the character of Polybius’ sources excludes this hypothesis’; id. (n. 1), 193–4.

²⁶ Polyb. 10.2.3–10.5.10, 10.9.2–3. Cf. Walbank (n. 1), 192–7; id. (n. 8), 59–64. Walbank argues that a ‘substantial part’ of the Scipionic legend already existed by the mid second century b.c. and was to be found in the source(s) Polybius was criticizing.

²⁷ Meyer, E., Kleine Schriften (Halle, 1924), 2.439Google Scholar; Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 72–4; id. (n. 7 [1970]), 18; Walbank (n. 1), 195; id. (n. 8), 60.

²⁸ Polyb. 10.3.3–7 (but none of this appears at 3.65, in Polybius’ account of the battle).

²⁹ Livy 21.46.10: seruati consulis decus Coelius ad seruum natione Ligurem delegat; malim equidem de filio uerum esse, quod et plures tradidere auctores et fama obtinuit (= FRHist 15 F 12); Macrob. Sat. 1.11.26 has Scipio rescued by a slave. See Val. Max. 5.4.2, Sen. Ben. 3.33, Sil. Pun. 4.454–71, Flor. 1.22.10–11, Cass. Dio, fr. 57.38, Oros. 4.14.6, De uir. ill. 49 and Zonar. 8.23, all of whom have Scipio rescued by his son, but few of whom are independent of the Livian tradition and, as Livy says, fama obtinuit; Plin. HN 16.14 has the younger Scipio refuse the corona ciuica offered to him for saving his father.

³⁰ Livy 21.46.8: hic erit iuuenis penes quem perfecti huiusce belli laus est, Africanus ob egregiam uictoriam de Hannibale Poenisque appellatus; so too Flor. 1.22.10–11; Sil. Pun. 4.472–3; Oros. 4.14.6; see Schwarte (n. 4), 107; Beck, H., Karriere und Hierarchie. Die römische Aristokratie und die Anfänge des cursus honorum in der mittleren Republik (Berlin, 2005), 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mineo, B., ‘Principal literary sources for the Punic Wars (apart from Polybius)’, in Hoyos, B.D. (ed.), A Companion to the Punic Wars (Malden, MA, 2011), 111–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 115 treats the story as romance.

³¹ Livy 38.51.7; Val. Max. 3.7.1g; App. Syr. 40; Gell. NA 4.18.3; De uir. ill. 49. See Wiseman, T.P., Clio's Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature (Leicester, 1979), 36–7Google Scholar; Gruen, E., ‘The “fall” of the Scipios’, in Malkin, I. and Rubinsohn, Z.W. (edd.), Leaders and Masses in the Roman World: Studies in Honor of Zvi Yavetz (Leiden, 1995), 59–90Google Scholar, at 80–6.

³² Walbank (n. 1), 198 says: ‘We must assume Laelius to be a reliable witness for events in which he personally participated.’ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 17 adopts a similar position.

³³ For example, Walbank (n. 1), 199: ‘It seems unsound to reject outright a story vouched for by Laelius … The suggestion that … he deliberately distorted the truth … does not merit serious consideration’. Why place such extraordinary confidence in a source whose authority cannot properly be checked, but whose testimony, the evidence suggests, may not have been entirely reliable? See, instead, Meyer (n. 27), 2.433: Laelius followed popular tradition in order to glorify Scipio. (Cf. Polyb. 1.14.4–9 on the praising of friends and the blaming of enemies; note that Polybius’ strictures are directed towards those who would write history. Their standards must be different.)

³⁴ Walbank (n. 1), 199; Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 29; Lazenby (n. 8), 288 n. 8. Needless to say, this approach assumes that Scipio's enemies would lie where his friends would not. Meyer (n. 27), 2.430 suggests that other versions of the story would not have been invented, had the version involving Scipio been authentic.

³⁵ All were sources of criticism; on Antiochus: Polyb. 23.14.1–11; Livy 38.51.1–2; App. Syr. 39–40; Gell. NA 4.18.3, 4.18.7; Zonar. 9.20; Locri: Diod. Sic. 27.4; Livy 29.8.5–29.9.12, 29.16.4–29.22.12, 38.51.1; Cass. Dio 57.62; Sicily: Livy 29.19.11–13, 29.21.13, 38.51.1; Plut. Cato mai. 3.5–8; Cass. Dio 57.62.

³⁶ Livy 25.2.6: aedilis curulis fuit eo anno [213 b.c.] cum M. Cornelio Cethego P. Cornelius Scipio, cui post Africano fuit cognomen. See, for example, Meyer (n. 27), 2.430–1; Walbank (n. 1), 199–200; Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 30–1.

³⁷ Having decided that Laelius was reliable, Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 17 is naturally keen to conclude that he was not Polybius’ source: ‘[the story] may not in fact derive from Laelius since Polybius only implies but does not state that it does’; see also id. (n. 7 [1970]), 30. Earlier, Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 74 had tried a different approach: ‘Laelius may have passed on anecdotes about Scipio's youth which are incorrect in detail [sic], but this does not vitiate his value … when he is dealing with military matters’. Walbank (n. 1), 199: ‘P. suggests rather than actually states that this story is also from Laelius’; id. (n. 8), 59–60. At 10.3.2 Polybius says that Laelius’ evidence seems likely and in keeping with Scipio's achievements, which may leave the door open for almost anything.

³⁸ Although Laelius was said to have been a participant in these events, he was on the other side of the city and, moreover, at sea on a ship; see Polyb. 10.9.4, 10.12.1 for Laelius and the fleet (not everyone agreed, however, that Laelius was in charge of the fleet, as Polybius says; see Livy 26.49.4: some said that M. Iunius Silanus was in command). See Meyer (n. 27), 2.428–33, whose assessment of Laelius’ credibility is far more persuasive.

³⁹ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 11: ‘Though Scipio's reply [to Philip's request for “a true record” of events] probably remained a private document and unpublished, a copy survived in the Scipionic household where it was seen by the historian Polybius.’ Walbank (n. 1), 204: ‘P. probably had access to a copy of this letter through Aemilianus; for had published versions circulated at Rome, Cicero would surely have known of them’; id. (n. 8), 68. E. Gabba, ‘P. Cornelio Scipione Africano e la leggenda’, Athenaeum 53 (1975), 3–17, at 5 suggests that Aemilius Paullus may have brought the letter back to Rome after Pydna, in Perseus’ library; Gabba is followed by Engels (n. 8), 467. More recently, see Scholz, P., ‘Sullas commentarii – eine literarische Rechtfertigung. Zu Wesen und Funktion der autobiographischen Schriften in der späten römischen Republik’, in Eigler, U. et al. (edd.), Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius (Darmstadt, 2003), 172–95Google Scholar, at 174–5. For arguments against Scullard's position, see Candau, J.M., ‘Republican Rome: autobiography and political struggles’, in Marasco, G. (ed.), Political Autobiographies and Memoirs in Antiquity (Leiden, 2011), 121–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 122–7.

⁴⁰ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 11: ‘Philip may well have been dissatisfied with some of the popular accounts of Scipio's exploits which were current at the time, and therefore asked him for a true record’; see also Meyer (n. 27), 2.454; Walbank (n. 1), 197; id. (n. 8), 68–9; Gabba (n. 39), 5 finds this hypothesis attractive. The idea that Scipio could not possibly have written about supernatural help, as Walbank in particular maintains, somewhat contradicts the ancient view that he deliberately fostered belief in his divine support (see Polyb. 10.2.12, 10.4.4–10.5.7; Livy 26.19.3–9; Val. Max. 1.2.2; App. Hisp. 23; Gell. NA 6.1.6; Cass. Dio 57.39; De uir. ill. 49). See Candau (n. 39), 121–7 for a different reconstruction.

⁴¹ Candau (n. 39), 123 claims that the ‘[f]riendship between [Scipio and Philip V] is a conclusion that modern authors extract from Polybius’ reference’. That is not quite true, but the evidence usually adduced does not really support the idea of a close friendship between them (cf. Livy 37.7.15; App. Syr. 23, Mac. 9.5).

⁴² Cf., for example, Walbank (n. 1), 195–6; id. (n. 8), 69; Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 235–7; Seguin, R., ‘La religion de Scipion l'Africain’, Latomus 33 (1974), 3–21Google Scholar; Rawson, E., ‘Roman tradition and the Greek world’, in Astin, A.E. et al. (edd.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume VIII: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 b.c. (Cambridge, 1989 ²), 422–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 433; Beard, M., North, J. and Price, S., Religions of Rome. Volume I: A History (Cambridge, 1998), 84–6Google Scholar.

⁴³ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 54. Cf. also n. 25 above.

⁴⁴ Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 73–4 rejects the idea that Laelius could be ‘a stupid perverter of the truth’. His vocabulary makes his position absolutely unambiguous. In contrast, see Wiseman (n. 31), 7–8.

⁴⁵ Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 54; cf. id. (n. 7 [1930]), 74.

⁴⁶ See, for example, Lazenby (n. 8), 136 for a similar statement; for Walbank's views, see nn. 25, 32 and 33 above.

⁴⁷ See the references in n. 40 above.

⁴⁸ See n. 26 above.

⁴⁹ Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 73 says that it ‘is, of course, completely untenable’ that Polybius rationalized the story, but Scullard makes assumptions about the material available to him (viz. Laelius’ reliable account of events and the ‘popular miraculous version’) and the approach that was required for him to produce a rationalized account (apparently he would have needed to blend Laelius’ account with his own rationalized version of the miraculous story). See, in contrast, Beard, North and Price (n. 42), 86.

⁵⁰ Polyb. 6.56.14; Beard, North and Price (n. 42), 108.

⁵¹ Walbank (n. 8), 60 certainly discusses the two together.

⁵² See n. 26 above.

⁵³ For an unambiguous example of Polybius shaping his account of Scipio's deeds for his own purposes, see Chaplin, J.D., ‘Scipio the matchmaker’, in Kraus, C.S., Marincola, J. and Pelling, C. (edd.), Ancient Historiography and its Contexts. Studies in Honour of A.J. Woodman (Oxford, 2010), 60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 62.

⁵⁴ For Scipio's divine conception, see n. 58 below. For the storm, see Livy 29.27.13–15 (= FRHist 15 F 37, although see FRHist 3.257).

⁵⁵ Discussion in Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 29–30; Ridley, R.T., ‘Was Scipio Africanus at Cannae?’, Latomus 34 (1975), 161–5Google Scholar; Zimmermann, K., ‘Scipios Eid nach Cannae – eine propagandistische ‹Retourkutsche›?’, Chiron 27 (1997), 471–82Google Scholar; Beck (n. 30), 335.

⁵⁶ Walbank (n. 8). On the Scipionic legend, see, more recently, Engels (n. 8), 459–63 and 466–8, with further bibliography.

⁵⁷ Walbank (n. 8), 67–8. Earlier, see Meyer (n. 27), 2.444; so too Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 19, 58; Gabba (n. 39), 3; Briscoe (n. 4), 59; Engels (n. 8), 466 is less certain.

⁵⁸ Livy 26.19.7; Gell. NA 6.1.1 also notes the parallel, although, in his case, it is between Alexander's mother and Scipio's mother. For Scipio's divine parentage, see Livy 26.19.6–7 and per. 26; Oppius (FRHist 40 F 1) and Hyginus (FRHist 63 F 3) ap. Gell. NA 6.1.1–5; Val. Max. 1.2.2; Sil. Pun. 13.615–44; Quint. Inst. 2.4.19; Cass. Dio, fr. 57.39; De uir. ill. 49.

⁵⁹ Levene, D.S., Livy on the Hannibalic War (Oxford, 2010), 119–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; of more recent work, see also, for example, Spencer, D., The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter, 2002), 172–5Google Scholar, 178–9; Bernard, J.-E., Le portrait chez Tite-Live. Essai sur une écriture de l'histoire romaine (Brussels, 2000), 325–30Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Curt. 4.2.17; Plut. Alex. 24.3; Arr. Anab. 2.18.1; and Polyb. 10.11.7 for Scipio. Cf. Levene (n. 59), 120.

⁶¹ Arr. Anab. 2.17.3: ἐξαιρεθείσης δὲ Τύρου ἥ τε Φοινίκη ἔχοιτο ἂν πᾶσα; Livy 26.43.3: in una urbe uniuersam ceperitis Hispaniam; Levene (n. 59), 121. Perhaps something along similar lines can be understood behind Polybius’ comments at 10.11.6, although they are fairly commonplace.

⁶² Arr. Anab. 1.26.1; Levene (n. 59), 121–2.

⁶³ Strabo 14.3.9; Levene (n. 59), 122.

⁶⁴ Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 85–6.

⁶⁵ Scullard (n. 7 [1930]), 78 and n. 3; id. (n. 7 [1970]), 55.

⁶⁶ See n. 11 above.

⁶⁷ The stories are handled together in Frontin. Str. 2.11.5–6; Gell. NA 7.8; Amm. Marc. 24.4.27; see also, for Alexander: Diod. Sic. 17.37.3–17.38.3; Curt. 3.12.6–26; Plut. Alex. 21, 22.3; Arr. Anab. 2.12.3–8; and for Scipio: Polyb. 10.18.7–10.19.6; Livy 26.49.11–26.50.14; Val. Max. 4.3.1; Sil. Pun. 15.268–82; Cass. Dio, fr. 57.42–3; De uir. ill. 49; Zonar. 9.8. See Levene (n. 59), 120; Chaplin (n. 53), 61. Rawson (n. 42), 433 appears to treat the story as historical, with Scipio consciously modelling himself on Alexander.

⁶⁸ Levene (n. 59), 120. See also Scullard (n. 7 [1970]), 237; Seguin (n. 42), 17–18; Rawson (n. 42), 433–4.

⁶⁹ Polyb. 10.3.3–6; 10.3.5: αὐτὸς εἰσελάσαι παραβόλως δοκεῖ καὶ τολμηρῶς εἰς τοὺς περικεχυμένους.

⁷⁰ According to Livy 26.48.6, two men claimed the corona muralis, the crown awarded to the first man to scale the walls (Livy 26.48.5); one, Sex. Digitius, was a socius naualis, the other, Q. Trebellius, was a centurion; to avoid further disagreement, Scipio awarded crowns to both (26.48.6–13). The story presupposes that the attack on the walls from the ships was equally an important part of the operations, even if the ancient sources make little of it (doubtless because the focus was on the miraculous crossing of the lagoon and its subsequent rationalization).

⁷¹ See n. 38 above.