A Manual of Ancient History Part 9

Their names likewise have been already discovered on monuments; some at Abydos in Egypt, others in Nubia.

6. The Egyptian monarchy, however, at length fell, and was replaced by an oligarchy; (or perhaps a return was only made to the division of the earlier kingdoms;) twelve princes sharing among themselves the sovereign power. A certain degree of unity seems to have existed at first in this government; but quarrels soon sprung up among the princes, and they compelled one of their number, Psammetichus of Sais, to take flight. The exiled prince, supported by Greek and Carian mercenaries, contrived to avenge his wrongs; he drove away his rivals, and became the sole ruler.

THIRD PERIOD.

_From the reign of Psammetichus as sole monarch to the Persian conquest of Egypt by Cambyses. B. C. 650-525._

Herodotus, (l. ii, c. 125, etc.) is still the princ.i.p.al authority for this portion of history. His statements, however, are no longer derived from hieroglyphics: they are purely historical. During the reign of Psammetichus, the Greeks who had migrated into Egypt gave rise to the caste of interpreters, [Greek: hermeneis], who acted both as ciceroni for strangers, and as brokers between the Egyptians and Greeks: these people were enabled to give information respecting the history of the country. It is not, therefore, surprising that Herodotus should a.s.sure us, that from this time the history was authentic.--The names of the succeeding Pharaohs are likewise found on the monuments; in the erection of which they rivaled their predecessors.

_Contemporary_: Asia: rise and fall of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian empire; rise of the Persian monarchy.--Rome: kings from Numa Pompilius to Servius Tullius.--Athens: Draco; Solon; Pisistratus.--Jews: the last period and fall of the kingdom of Judah; Babylonish captivity.

1. From this epoch Egypt remained uninterruptedly one kingdom, the capital of which was Memphis, although Sais, in Lower Egypt, was the general residence of the royal family. Strangers, and more particularly Greeks, admitted into Egypt; partly as mercenaries, partly as merchants.

Influence of this innovation upon the national character, and upon the political system in particular. A spirit of conquest gradually inherited by the Egyptian kings, is directed princ.i.p.ally against Asia: hence the formation of a navy, and wars with the great rising monarchies of Asia.

Continued, but declining influence of the sacerdotal caste, and proofs of the veneration of the kings for the priesthood deduced from the erection and embellishment of temples, particularly of that consecrated to Phtha in Memphis.

2. _Psammetichus._ He obtains sole power through the a.s.sistance of Greek and Carian mercenaries, who are continued as a standing army in the country. The caste of Egyptian warriors, taking umbrage in consequence, emigrate for the most part to Ethiopia, where they settle. The southern portico of the temple of Phtha is erected, and projects of conquest are formed against Asia.

3. _Neco_, son and successor of Psammetichus. His extensive plans of conquest. First formation of a naval power; and unsuccessful attempt to unite by a ca.n.a.l the Mediterranean with the Red sea. Conquests in Asia as far as the Euphrates; but quick secession of the conquered, in consequence of the loss of the battle of Circesium. Circ.u.mnavigation of Africa undertaken at his command by the Phoenicians, and successfully performed.

4. _Psammis his son and successor._ Expedition against Ethiopia, and conquests in the interior of Africa.

5. Reign of _Apries_, (the Pharaoh-hophra of the Hebrews). Plans of conquest against Asia;--siege of Sidon, and naval battle with the Tyrians;--expedition against Cyrene in Africa; its fatal result. A revolution caused thereby in Egypt, the inhabitants of which were averse to foreign wars, carried on mostly by mercenary aliens: the revolution headed by Amasis. In the civil war which Apries now wages with his mercenaries against the Egyptians commanded by Amasis, he loses both his throne and life; and with him ends the family of Psammetichus, which had reigned to this time.

6. The usurper _Amasis_ took possession of the sovereign power; and although he had to contend with a strong party, who despised him on account of his low origin, he contrived by popular measures, and by the respect he showed to the sacerdotal caste, to establish himself upon the throne.--His monuments, both at Sais and Memphis.--The Egyptians and Greeks become better acquainted and more closely connected with each other, partly in consequence of the marriage of the king with a Greek woman; but princ.i.p.ally owing to the mouths of the Nile being opened to the Greek merchants, and the cession of Naucratis as a factory for their merchandise. Great and beneficial consequences to Egypt, which, under the long reign of Amasis, reaches its highest pitch of prosperity. This prince had already been engaged in disputes with the Persian conqueror, Cyrus, whose son and successor, Cambyses, led an expedition against Egypt, which Amasis, however, luckily for himself, escaped by a seasonable death.

7. His son Psammenitus, the last of the Egyptian Pharaohs, is attacked by Cambyses in the very first year of his reign. After a single battle, fought at Pelusium, and a short siege of Memphis, the empire of the Pharaohs is overthrown, and Egypt merges into a Persian province. The powerful caste of the priests suffered most from the hatred of the conqueror; but the persecution to which they were subjected must be attributed rather to policy than fanaticism.

8. Condition and fate of Egypt as a Persian province. After the death of Cambyses, the country received a Persian governor, and consequently became a satrapy. Immediately after the first tempest of war had blown over, Egypt was treated with mildness by the Persians. The country paid a moderate tribute, together with some royal gifts, among others the produce of the fisheries in lake Moeris; nevertheless, repeated revolts occurred, which may be princ.i.p.ally attributed to the hatred and influence of the sacerdotal caste. The first took place under Darius Hystaspes, and was quelled by Xerxes. An increase of tribute was the consequence. The second, under king Inarus, fomented and supported by the Athenians, happened during the reign of Artaxerxes I.; it was quelled by Megabyzus. The third occurred under Darius II. and in consequence of the support which the Egyptians received from the Greeks, was of longer duration than either of the former, the throne of the Pharaoh's being in some measure restored.

This third secession of the Egyptians lasted till 354. During this period various kings were appointed; Amyrtaeus, _d._ 408; Psammetichus, about 400; Nephreus, about 397; Pausiris, _d._ 375; Nectanebus I. _d._ 365; Tachos, _d._ 363; Nectanebus II. conquered by Artaxerxes III. 354.

CARTHAGINIANS.

Sources. The first great republic which ancient records mention as applying both to trade and war, is undoubtedly a phenomenon well deserving the attention of the historical enquirer. Our knowledge, however, of Carthaginian history is unfortunately very deficient, as we possess no author who has made it the princ.i.p.al object of his attention. The immediate subject of the Greek and Roman writers was the history of their own country, and they only allude to that of Carthage in so far as it is connected with their main topic. This observation applies as well to Polybius and Diodorus, as to Livy and Appian. Even the information given by Justin, the only author who says any thing concerning the early state of Carthage, is miserably defective, although taken from Theopompus. (Cf. _Comment.

de fontibus_ JUSTINI _in Commentat. Soc. Gotting._ vol. xv.) Moreover, as Herodotus here fails us, we have not the writings of any author whatever who witnessed Carthage in the days of her prosperity: Polybius did not see that country till after the decline of its power; the other historians, wrote long afterwards.

But although an uninterrupted history of Carthage does not exist, we are yet able to trace the main outlines of the picture of that state.--The modern writers on Carthage are:

HENDRICH, _de Republica Carthaginiensium_, 1664. A useful compilation.

# _History of the Republic of Carthage_, 2 vols. Franckfort, 1781.

A mere history of the wars.

DAMPMARTIN, _Histoire de la Rivalite de Carthage et de Rome_, tom.

i, ii. Very superficial.

# W. BOETTICHER, _History of Carthage_, part i. Berlin, 1827.

The best work on the subject; in which use has been made of modern researches.

Concerning the Carthaginians, see HEEREN'S _African Nations_, 2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1831.

The history of Carthage is most conveniently divided into three periods: I. From the foundation of the city to the commencement of the wars with Syracuse, B. C. 880-480. II. From the commencement of the wars with Syracuse to those with Rome, 480-264. III. From the commencement of the wars with Rome to the destruction of Carthage, 264-146.

FIRST PERIOD.

_From the foundation of Carthage to the wars with Syracuse, B. C.

880-480._

_Contemporary_: Inner Asia: kingdoms of the a.s.syrians, Babylonians, and first half of the Persian monarchy. Greeks: period from Lycurgus to Themistocles. Romans: period of the kings, and of the commonwealth until the establishment of the tribunes of the people.

1. The foundation and primitive history of Carthage, like all very early and important events in national history, have, by long tradition, been wrapt in the veil of romance. The account given of Dido, the supposed founder of the city, cannot be reduced to the standard of pure historical truth, though it appears to justify the inference that some political commotions in the mother city, Tyre, induced a party of emigrants to proceed to the northern sh.o.r.es of Africa; where other Phoenician establishments had already taken place: here, by engaging to pay a yearly tribute, they purchased from the natives permission to found a city, the site of which was so happily chosen, that it only depended upon the inhabitants to raise it to that greatness which it afterwards attained.

2. It is probable that Carthage advanced at first by slow steps; yet even at the end of this first period she had reached to such a height of power, that she was mistress of a large territory in Africa, and of foreign possessions still more extensive. Establishment of the Carthaginian dominion in Africa by the subjection of the neighbouring aboriginal tribes, and the foundation of Carthaginian settlements within their territories; the natives, Liby-Phoenicians, gradually mingled with the inhabitants of those colonies, and imbibed from them a love of agriculture and fixed abodes. The inhabitants of the fertile territory extending southward as far as the lake Triton, were, without exception, Carthaginian subjects.

3. Her connection, however, with the ancient Phoenician towns along the coast, particularly Utica, was of a different nature. For although possessed a certain authority over them, she did not claim absolute dominion, but rather stood at the head of a federation; thus affording a protection which must frequently have degenerated into oppression.

4. In consequence of a treaty with the neighbouring republic of Cyrene, the whole territory extending between the two Syrtes was also ceded to the Carthaginians. The Lotophagi and Nasamones, inhabitants of this district, preserved their nomad mode of life; they must, however, from their trade with the interior parts of Africa, have been of the highest importance to Carthage.

5. System of colonization, and, as a necessary result, that of conquest without Africa. It was evidently the aim of the Carthaginians to settle on islands, and to subject them to their dominion. Those lying in the western part of the Mediterranean occupied the first place in their plan of conquest, which was completely executed in Sardinia, the Baleares, and other small islands; perhaps in Corsica; in Sicily, however, they could never succeed to the full extent of their wishes. There is also every probability that the Canary islands and Madeira were entirely in their possession. On the other hand, the Carthaginians, previous to their wars with Rome, were in the practice of establis.h.i.+ng separate settlements on the main land, partly in Spain, and partly on the western sh.o.r.e of Africa. In the latter, they adopted the policy of their ancestors, the Phoenicians, making the settlements so small, and confining them within such narrow bounds, that the mother country might always ensure their dependence.

6. The glory of extending the territory of Carthage, by important conquests, belongs princ.i.p.ally to the family of Mago, who, together with his two sons and six grandsons, established the dominion of the republic in Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa. This occurred about the same time that Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius were laying the foundation of the Persian monarchy, with which Carthage even then entered into connection. The Carthaginians, therefore, made their first appearance, as extensive conquerors, in the fourth century from the foundation of their commonwealth; and it is at this period that mention is made of their first naval engagement, in which the Phocaeans were their adversaries. In the same period may be dated the establishment of their colonies beyond the Pillars of Hercules by Hanno and Himilco--both probably sons of Mago;--by the former on the coast of Africa, by the latter on that of Spain. To the same period likewise is referred the first commercial treaty between the Carthaginians and Romans, in which the former appear as already masters of Sardinia, Africa, and a portion of Sicily.

7. To complete these conquests, and to preserve them when completed, the formation and support of vast fleets and armies were indispensably necessary. According to the usual practice of those nations who apply both to trade and to war, the Carthaginian armies were composed for the most part of mercenaries. No nation, however, followed this plan so extensively as the Carthaginians, for to them half Africa and Europe furnished warriors.--Description of a Carthaginian army; development of the advantages and disadvantages of its organization.--Organization of their navy. The state supported very numerous fleets of war-s.h.i.+ps, with a mult.i.tude of slaves who laboured at the oar, and were it seems public property.

8. The political const.i.tution of Carthage, like that of all wealthy trading states, was an aristocracy composed of the n.o.ble and the opulent, though at all times combined with a certain admixture of democracy. The affairs of the state were confided to the hands of the two suffetes or kings,--who, in all probability, held their office for life--and to those of the senate ([Greek: Boule]) which contained within itself a more select council (the [Greek: gerousia]). The privilege of electing the magistrates resided with the people at large, who also shared the legislative power with the suffetes. Civil and military power was usually divided: the offices of general and magistrate not being always, as at Rome, united in the same individual,--although such an instance might not be of impossible occurrence:--to each military chief, on the contrary, was appointed a committee from the senate, on which he was more or less dependent.

9. The high state tribunal of the HUNDRED was inst.i.tuted as a barrier to the const.i.tution against the attempts of the more powerful aristocrats, particularly the military leaders; indeed the brilliancy of Mago's conquests seemed to threaten the republic with a military government; and immediately previous to his time one of the generals, Malchus, had actually made an attempt to enslave Carthage. The object of the inst.i.tution was no doubt attained; but in later times the council a.s.sumed to itself a power which increased to absolute despotism. It is not improbable that this court likewise const.i.tuted the select committee (the [Greek: gerousia]) of the senate.

10. Our information respecting the financial system of the Carthaginians is extremely meagre. The following seem to have been the princ.i.p.al sources of the public revenue. 1. The tribute drawn from the federate cities, and their African subjects. The former paid in money, the latter for the most part in kind; this tribute was imposed at the will of the government, so that in pressing cases the taxed nations were obliged to give one half of their income. 2. The case was the same with their external provinces, particularly with Sardinia. 3. The tribute furnished by the nomad hordes, partly by those in the Regio-Syrtica, and occasionally also by those on the western side. 4. The customs, which were levied with extreme rigour, not only in Carthage, but likewise in all the colonies. 5. The products of their rich mines, particularly those of Spain. In considering the financial system of the Carthaginians, it should not be forgotten that many of the nations with whom they traded, or who served in their armies, were unacquainted with the use of money.

11. System and extent of their commerce. Their object was to secure a monopoly of the western trade; hence the practice of restricting the growth of their colonies, and of removing as much as possible all strangers from their commercial marts. Their trade was carried on partly by sea, and partly by land. Their sea trade, arising from the colonies, extended beyond the Mediterranean, certainly as far as the coasts of Britain and Guinea. Their land trade was carried on by caravans, consisting princ.i.p.ally of the nomad tribes resident between the Syrtes: the caravans travelled eastward to Ammonium and Upper Egypt, southward to the land of the Garamantes, (Fezzan,) and even still further into the interior of Africa.

SECOND PERIOD.

_From the breaking out of the wars with Syracuse, to the commencement of those with Rome, B. C. 480-264._

1. The great object of Carthaginian policy during the whole of the above period, was to subdue Sicily; this object the nation pursued with extraordinary pertinacity, often approximating to, but never obtaining, complete success. The growing power of Syracuse, which likewise aimed at the sole possession of the island, laid the foundation of that national hatred which now arose between the Sicilian Greeks and the Carthaginians.

2. First attempt, arising out of the league formed with Xerxes I. upon his irruption into Greece. Gelon of Syracuse, in a victory more decisive even than that gained by Themistocles over the Persians at Salamis, routs the Carthaginians near Himera, and compels them to accede to a disgraceful peace.

3. This defeat was followed by a period of tranquillity lasting seventy years, during which we know little about Carthage. All that we can say with any probability is, that in the mean time the struggle for territory between Cyrene and Carthage commenced and terminated to the advantage of the latter state, whose dominion was generally extended and confirmed in Africa by wars with the aboriginal tribes.

4. But the accession of Dionysius I. to the throne of Syracuse, and the ambitious project formed by him and his successors, of subjecting to their rule all Sicily and Magna-Grecia, rekindled once more the embers of war, which had only smouldered for a short time, to burst forth with additional violence.