evidence and of the reasons for his judgment we know nothing. All that is handed down is the fact that he acquitted Pleminius, restored him to command, and pronouncing the tribunes guilty, ordered them to be thrown into chains and sent back to Rome for the Senate to deal with. He then returned to Sicily.
The verdict appears somewhat astonishing, the one serious blemish, in fact, on Scipioâs judgment. The motives which inspired it are difficult to surmise. Perhaps it was partly pity for the mutilated Pleminius, combined with anger that his own men should have shown such gross insubordination and committed such an atrocity.
It is a natural instinct with the best type of commander to be more severe on the misconduct of his own direct subordinates than on those who are only attached to him, and in case of dispute between the two such a man may err because of his very scrupulousness to hold the balance fairly, and to avoid partiality towards his own. It was said of one of the finest British commanders in the war of 1914-18 that if he had a personal dislike or distrust of a subordinate he invariably gave the latter more rope than the others, knowing that if his distrust was justified the man would assuredly use this rope to hang himself. Similar may have been the motives underlying Scipioâs outwardly inexplicable verdict. In criticising it the historian must consider not only the gaps in our knowledge of the case, but view the incident in the general light of all Scipioâs recorded acts as a commander. The whole weight of evidence, as we have seen, goes to show that two qualities which especially distinguished Scipio were the acuteness of his understanding of men, and his humanity to the conquered. Trust in a Pleminius or condonation of brutality were the last things to be expected of him, and so, lacking evidence as to the facts on which his decision was based, it would be rash to pass adverse judgment on his action.
We need to remember also that Locri was in
Italy, and therefore outside his province, and a close attention to its administration could only be at the expense of his primary objectâpreparation for the expedition to Africa.
The importance of the Locri incident is not as a light on Scipioâs character, but as a political rock on which his military plans nearly foundered. How this came about can be briefly told. After Scipioâs departure, Pleminius, who thought that the injury he had sustained had been treated too lightly by Scipio, disobeyed the latterâs instructions. He had the tribunes dragged before him and tortured to death, refusing even to allow their mangled bodies to be buried. His injuries still rankling, he then sought to avenge himself by multiplying the burdens put on the Locrians. In despair, they sent a deputation to the Roman Senate. Their envoys arrived soon after the consular elections, which had marked the end of Scipioâs term of office, though he was continued in command of the troops in Sicily. Their tale of misery raised a storm of popular indignation at Rome, and Scipioâs senatorial opponents were not slow to divert this on to the head of the man nominally responsible. It is no surprise to find that Fabius initiated this by asking if they had carried their complaints to Scipio. The envoys replied, according to Livy, thatâ deputies were sent to him, but he
was occupied with the preparations for the war, and had either already crossed over into Africa, or was on the point of doing so.â They added that his previous decision between Pleminius and the tribunes had given them the impression that the former was in favour with Scipio.
Fabius had got the answer he wanted, and after the envoys had withdrawn, hastened to condemn Scipio unheard, declaringâ that he was born for the corruption of military discipline. In Spain he almost lost more men in consequence of the mutiny than in the war. That, after the manner of foreigners and kings, he indulged
Ellis Peters
Alexandra V
Anna Sheehan
Bobbi Marolt
Charlaine Harris
Maureen Lindley
Joanna A. Haze
Lolah Runda
Nonnie Frasier
Meredith Skye