Abstract:Few historical problems have produced more unprofitable discussion than that of Hannibal's pass over the Alps. But if there is still no clear answer, some headway had at least been made in defining the question—which is half the battle. Kahrstedt put the matter as succinctly as anyone. ‘Mit Topographie ist nicht zum Ziele zu kommen, weisse Felsen and tiefe Schluchten, Flusstäler und steile Abhänge gibt es uberall. Das Problem ist literarhistorisch, nicht topographisch.’ Hence a feeling of dismay at finding the… Show more
“…This can be explained as follows. As has been argued and demonstrated in works such as those by Walbank (1956) and, in particular, by Meyer (1958), the reason why Polybius and Livy provide partly identical accounts of the events is most probably related to the fact that they relied on the same primary source, namely an historian by the name of Silenos, who had himself participated in Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. In view of this background, it is reasonable to assume that the similar accounts of the difficulties encountered during the descent—that is, the steepness of the terrain, the breaking away of the path and the hindrance by snow—are based on the eye‐witness report by Silenos, while the rock fragmentation episode is not, and only presents an extra addition from Livy.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 93%
“…III, 48, 12). Polybius' report, which contains very detailed information about locations and distances, clearly and exclusively favours the route through the Isère Valley and the Arc Valley across the Col du Mont Cenis, or—even more likely—across the Col du Clapier (Walbank 1956; Meyer 1958, 1964) (Figs 1–4).…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This route was first suggested by de Beer (1955), who reasoned on the basis of local names and descriptions only provided in Livy's account, but not in that from Polybius. Based on a critical analysis of the sources, which is absent in de Beer (1955), Walbank (1956) could prove that Polybius and Livy both drew on the same authentic report by Silenos and, moreover, that Livy included passages from a non‐authentic Roman source, which he mingled with Silenos' report, obviously not realizing that the route depictions in the two sources were incompatible with one another. This finding was subsequently confirmed and further corroborated by Meyer (1958).…”
For a long time now, historians have considered the way across the Col de Clapier as the most likely invasion route of Hannibal's army across the Alps. Mahaney et al. challenge this view by introducing a two‐tier rockfall into the discussion, which they believe is mentioned in the ancient texts and has gone unnoticed by modern scholars. Since a deposit of this kind can only be found at the Col de la Traversette—and there alone—Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, so they reason, must have followed this alternative route. However, a critical reassessment of the ancient texts and a closer look at the geomorphological situation clearly show that this interpretation is unwarranted.
“…This can be explained as follows. As has been argued and demonstrated in works such as those by Walbank (1956) and, in particular, by Meyer (1958), the reason why Polybius and Livy provide partly identical accounts of the events is most probably related to the fact that they relied on the same primary source, namely an historian by the name of Silenos, who had himself participated in Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. In view of this background, it is reasonable to assume that the similar accounts of the difficulties encountered during the descent—that is, the steepness of the terrain, the breaking away of the path and the hindrance by snow—are based on the eye‐witness report by Silenos, while the rock fragmentation episode is not, and only presents an extra addition from Livy.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 93%
“…III, 48, 12). Polybius' report, which contains very detailed information about locations and distances, clearly and exclusively favours the route through the Isère Valley and the Arc Valley across the Col du Mont Cenis, or—even more likely—across the Col du Clapier (Walbank 1956; Meyer 1958, 1964) (Figs 1–4).…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This route was first suggested by de Beer (1955), who reasoned on the basis of local names and descriptions only provided in Livy's account, but not in that from Polybius. Based on a critical analysis of the sources, which is absent in de Beer (1955), Walbank (1956) could prove that Polybius and Livy both drew on the same authentic report by Silenos and, moreover, that Livy included passages from a non‐authentic Roman source, which he mingled with Silenos' report, obviously not realizing that the route depictions in the two sources were incompatible with one another. This finding was subsequently confirmed and further corroborated by Meyer (1958).…”
For a long time now, historians have considered the way across the Col de Clapier as the most likely invasion route of Hannibal's army across the Alps. Mahaney et al. challenge this view by introducing a two‐tier rockfall into the discussion, which they believe is mentioned in the ancient texts and has gone unnoticed by modern scholars. Since a deposit of this kind can only be found at the Col de la Traversette—and there alone—Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, so they reason, must have followed this alternative route. However, a critical reassessment of the ancient texts and a closer look at the geomorphological situation clearly show that this interpretation is unwarranted.
“…Classicists and ancient historians for more than two millennia have favoured several routes taken by the Punic army into Cisalpine Italia, but few have ever visited all the approaches, let alone targeted cols stretching across much of the Western Alps. Among these are: Freshfield (, ), Dodge (), Wilkinson (), Paton (), de Beer (, , , ), Walbank (, ), Brown (), Hart (), Proctor (), Connolly (), Seibert (), Bagnall (), Lancel () and Lazenby (), to name but a few. Of these interpreters, only de Beer (), Seibert () and Lazenby () have visited all the high passes.…”
Controversy over the alpine route taken by the Hannibalic Army from the Rhône Basin into Italia in 218 BC (2168 cal BP) has raged amongst classicists for over two millennia. Because Hannibal crossed the Alps, the significance for identifying the route taken by the Punic Army lies more in its potential for identifying sites of historical archaeological significance than a resolution of one of history's most enduring questions. While compelling stratigraphic, geochemical and microbiological evidence has been recovered from an alluvial floodplain mire in the upper Guil Valley, located below the Col de la Traversette (about 3000 masl) on the French-Italian border, it potentially identifies the invasion route as the one originally proposed by Sir Gavin de Beer in 1974. The dated layers in several sections, termed the MAD (mass animal deposition) beds based on disrupted/churned bedding and key/specialized *
Hannibal's crossing of the Alps is an historical event that is only passed down to us through ancient texts. Careful analysis of these written sources must therefore antedate and inform any scientific enquiry, including fieldwork. The random selection and investigation of topographical or sedimentological features, on the other hand, informed only by free translations of the Greek originals, is a misguided enterprise and can only end in futile conclusions. However, if both lines of enquiry—the critical analysis of written sources and the gathering of geographical evidence—are combined, it is still possible to reach positive conclusions. In the case of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, such combined efforts lead to the insight—first gained by Jean‐Baptiste Perrin (1887)—that the pass at Col de Clapier in the Mt Cenis group concurs with all the descriptive details as given in Polybius' Histories.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
