500-264 B.C. the same body. All the chief business of state was transacted by this council, and the general and his chief officers, who were always "elders," were appointed by it. The kings seem to have had comparatively little power, and acted as supreme judges. The general was much more of an autocrat, and is described by Roman writers as a dictator; the term of his office was not fixed, but the gerusiasts attached to him as sub-commanders must have restricted his power, and on laying down his office he had to give an official account of his actions. But over the gerusia and the magistrates was the body of the Hundred and Four, or the judges, the bulwark of the Carthaginian oligarchy. Although there is considerable obscurity as to the mode of their election and the length of their tenure of office, we may infer from the name of senators, given them by the Greeks and Romans, that they practically held office for life, and that they were elected by some method of coöptation. At first intended to act as political jurymen and hear the accounts of, and, if necessary, punish the general, or any of the gerusiasts, the judges gradually came to interfere in all legislation and thus usurp the functions of those gerusiasts whom they controlled. We can thus easily understand how the generals and statesmen of Carthage were perpetually hampered in council and action by the fear of this control. The body of citizens seems to have exercised very little influence in Carthage. Although the people were consulted in the election of a general, their opinion was only taken after the general had been nominated by the gerusia. On other questions the people were only consulted if the gerusia thought fit, so that, viewing the Carthaginian constitution as a whole, we may conclude that the government was one of capitalists, such as would arise in a city where there was no rich middle class, but merely a city rabble on the one hand and a class of great merchants, planters, and noble governors on the other. Regarded from a financial point of view, Carthage stands preeminent among the states of antiquity. Polybius calls it the wealthiest city in the world, and indeed it rivaled the London of our own times. The high pitch reached by the Carthaginians in the art of husbandry is attested by the agricultural treatise of Mago, the textbook not only of Carthage, but of Rome, which was translated into Greek and edited in Latin by the express order of the Roman senate, 500-264 B.C. for the benefit of Italian landholders. The close connection between agriculture and the management of capital was a special feature of their enlightened system; no one held more land than he could thoroughly manage. Thus enriched at home by the wellnigh inexhaustible resources of fertile Libya, whose horses, oxen, sheep, and goats excelled those of all other lands, and drawing a huge rental from her subjects, while abroad she held in her hands the trade and manufactures of the interior as well as of the coasts. of the western Mediterranean, Carthage occupied a commercial position up to that time unrivaled in the ancient world; and the whole carrying trade between East and West became more and more concentrated in her single harbor. For science and art Carthage was chiefly indebted to Hellenic influences, and rich treasures were carried off to Carthage from Sicilian temples. Native intellect was subservient to the interests of capital: and therefore her literature bore chiefly upon agriculture and geography, and such subjects as advanced commerce. The same utilitarian view of education caused the Carthaginians to pay special attention to the knowledge of foreign languages. In consequence of the huge accumulation of wealth in the city no direct taxation was found necessary; and after the second Punic war, when the power of Carthage was broken, it was found possible, by a stricter administration of the finances, to meet the current expenses and pay the yearly installment of $240,000 to Rome without levying any tax. Carthage anticipated the economic principles of a later epoch in her financial management of loans and currency. In fact, if government had resolved itself into a mere mercantile speculation, never would any state have solved the problem more brilliantly than Carthage. Some comparison between the resources of Rome and Carthage will be a fitting close to this chapter. Both cities were purely agricultural and mercantile, art and science in both playing a subordinate and wholly practical part. In Rome the landed interest still preponderated over the moneyed; in Carthage the reverse was the case. In the former the great mass of citizens tilled their own fields; in the latter the agricultural interest was centered in the hands of large landholders and slave-owners. Thus at Rome, owing to the fact that most of the citizens held property, the tone was conservative; in Carthage the majority held no property, and were therefore moved alike by the bribes of the rich and the reform 500-264 B.C. cries of the democrats. Rome still prescribed pristine frugal simplicity in her mode of life; Carthage was the victim of opulence and luxury. Politically, the constitution of both was aristocratic. The judges of Carthage and the senate of Rome governed on the same system of police-control. In both cities the individual magistrate was subject to the control of the governing board, but the cruel severity and absurd restrictions visible in the Carthaginian system contrast very unfavorably with the milder and more reasonable powers of the Roman council. Moreover, the Roman senate was open to and filled by men of eminent ability, representatives of the nation in the truest and best sense, while the Carthaginian senate exercised a jealous control on the executive, and represented only a few leading families, and was inspired by a sense of mistrust of all above and below it. Hence the steady unwavering policy of Rome, and the confidence and good understanding generally existing between the senate and its magistrates; while at Carthage a wavering half-hearted policy was pursued, and the best officers were generally at feud with the governing body at home, and were thus forced to join the reform or opposition party. Again, as to their treatment of subject states, Rome threw open her citizenship to one district after another, and made it even legally attainable by the Latin communities; Carthage never allowed such a hope to be entertained, still less to be realized. Rome granted a share in the fruits of victory, and sought to create a party in each state favorable to her own interests; Carthage reserved to herself all the spoils of victory, and took away from all cities the freedom of trade. Rome allowed a shadow of independence even to the lowest grade of her subject states, and imposed a fixed tribute on none; Carthage enforced a heavy tribute on even the old Phoenician cities, with the exception of Utica, and treated subject tribes as state slaves. Thus every African community, with the above exception, would have profited by the fall of Carthage, whereas every state in Italy would have lost rather than gained by a rebellion against Rome. The strength of the Roman alliance was shown in the war against Pyrrhus; the landing of Agathocles and Regulus in Africa, and the mercenary war, proved the hollow and rotten nature of the Carthaginian confederacy. In Sicily alone Carthage pursued a wiser and milder policy, owing to her inability to take Syracuse, and thus there was always a party there favorable to her interests. 500-264 B.C. The state revenues of Carthage were far superior to those of Rome, but the sources of that revenue-tribute and customs-were exhausted far sooner than those of Rome, and the Carthaginian mode of conducting war was far costlier than the Roman. Though very different, the military resources of the two rivals were not unequally balanced. Carthage, at the time of her conquest, still numbered 700,000 citizens, and at the close of the fifth century she could put into the field an army of 40,000 hoplites. Rome's advantage lay not so much in the superiority of numbers, as in the superior physique and character of the Roman husbandman. Neither the Carthaginians nor the Liby-Phoenicians were naturally soldiers; the flower of the Carthaginian armies consisted of the Libyans, who made good infantry, and were unsurpassed as light cavalry. Aided by the forces of the dependent tribes of Libya and Spain, and by the famous slingers of the Baleares, as well as by mercenary foreigners, the Carthaginians could raise their armies to almost any strength; but a long and dangerous interval must elapse before such hosts could be collected, and, when assembled, they lacked that unity of interests and those ties of fatherland which made the Roman army so formidable. Moreover, the relations between the Carthaginian officers and the mercenary and Libyan troops were marked by a callous indifference on the one hand and a dangerous and mutinous dissatisfaction on the other. Officers broke their word to the troops, and even betrayed them,-wrongs which were bitterly avenged by Libyan insurrections. Great efforts were always made by the Carthaginian government to remedy the defects of their military system. Not only were the army chests and magazines kept fully stored, but special attention was paid to all machines of war, and to the use of elephants. As the Carthaginians did not dare to fortify their dependent cities, owing to their fear of their subject states, they spared no pains in making Carthage impregnable. Rome, on the other hand, allowed most of the subject towns to retain their walls, and secured her power by a chain of frontier fortresses throughout Italy. The great strength of Carthage lay in her war-marine, composed of ships and sailors unrivaled in the world. Ships with more than three banks of oars were first built at Carthage, and her quinqueremes were better sailors than the Greek ships of war. In this point Rome was no match, and could not at this period venture into the open sea against her rivals. 500-264 B.C. To sum up, the resources of the two great powers were at the outset very equally matched; but the danger of Carthage lay in the want of a land army of her own, and of a confederacy of states resting on a secure and self-supporting basis. It was plain that neither Rome nor Carthage could be seriously attacked except in the home of her power; but, in the one case, almost insuperable obstacles met the invader; while, in the other, half his task was accomplished as soon as he had set foot on African soil. |