Tyrants Of Sicily

[Valens]

Edit: Whoops, title was meant to say "Tyrants of Sicily". If one of the staff could change it I'd give them a shiny apple in return.

---

 

Unlike in most other places around the ancient world, the cities of Ancient Sicily were often dominated by all-powerful 'tyrants'. Despite the thoughts "tyrant" evokes, not all tyrants were especially brutal rulers. And certainly, it doesn't apply that many weren't able. In fact, many built their cities up to positions of great wealth and splendor, many were able generals and commanders, and a few even built large, expasionist states that had the potential to unite Sicily.

 

But which of the many Sicilian tyrants do you think was the greatest? Why? I'll provide a few notable 'tyrants', and some of their feats to aid discussion:

 

Phalaris of Acragas: Ruled Acragas from 570-554 BC. As with most other tyrants of Sicily, he came to absolute power by force of his own army. Immediately he began building projects and aided his economy with an increase of trade. He embarked on military conquests, first capturing the native('Sicel'-inhabited) town of Vessa, and continuing on to the northern coastal city of Himera. The stories of him burning people inside his iron bull have made him legendary as a true evil tyrant.

 

Hippocrates of Gela: Ruled Gela from 498-490 BC. To become the sole-ruler of the southern city of Gela, he used his brother's mercenary army of native Sicilians (his brother was Cleander, the previous tyrant of Gela, who was assassinated). He immediately headed northeast, to conquer all that he could. He conquered large, eastern cities such as Leontini, Naxos, and Zankle. Eventually, all of eastern Sicily was his, save for Syracuse. He laid seige to the Syracusans, and inflicted a defeat on them at the River Helorus, but eventually left the city. Died on a campaign the next year. In each of the cities he conquered, he set up a "puppet tyrant" (a rather odd combination of words).

 

Gelon: Ruled Hippocrates's Gelan Empire from 490-478 BC. Had been the commander of Hippocrates's cavalry. He made Syracuse his capital, and is responsible for making it into the great city it would become. He and his ally, Theron (the newest tyrant of Acragas), became entangled in a conflict with the Carthaginians over the control of the northwestern town of Himera (Theron had captured it, and fearing his power, the Carthaginians decided they wanted to restore the city's old tyrant), which he eventually won (enflicting a disaterous defeat on the Carthaginians under Hamilcar at the Battle of Himera).

 

Hiero I of Syracuse: Ruled Syracuse from 478-467 BC. The brother of Gelon. He was extremely successful in bringing new settlers to his lands, namely to his new city, Aetna. His most notable military achievement was his defeat of the Etruscans at the Battle of Cumae and his subsequent seizure of land on the Island of Pithecusae.

 

Dionysius of Syracuse: Ruled Syracuse from 405-367 BC. The two Sicilian towns of Selinus and Segesta had been having conflicts for years, and, while Hermocrates of Syracuse was off aiding the Spartans against the Athenians, the town of Selinus launched an attack on Segesta, which was initially successful. As a result, the Segestans asked Carthage for aid. In 408 BC, a Carthaginian force, commanded by hannibal (the grandson of the Hamilcar that was defeated by Gelon at Battle of Himera years before) landed in Sicily. He easily defeated Selinus and moved on to take Himera. He captured the city, and made 'proper' sacrifice for his grandfather there. Meanwhile, Syracuse was in turmoil. The radical and moderate Syracusans even begun 'fighting in the streets'. This only encouraged the Carthaginians, and they went on to take the powerful city of Acragas. Under a new general, Himilco, they took Gela. The Syracusans were desperate to stop the Carthaginians, and to do so, they appointed Dionysius to be their sole ruler. In his initial attempt to stop Himilco (tried to relieve Gela), he was defeated. Luckily for the Sicilian Greeks, Himilco's army succomb to a plague before it could move against the northeastern cities. A peace treaty was signed. Many Syracusans had come to despise Dionysius, and to weaken them, he decided to divide them (land reforms). He also liberated many slaves and gave aid to the poorest classes, giving him a large new class of 'friendly' Syracusans. His next move was to prepare for war with Carthage. To do this, he conquered Leontini, Catane, and Naxos, and used diplomacy to ensure the goodwill of Central Italy and Northeast Sicily (worth mentioning too that at this time his engineers are said to have created the catapult, which he armed one of his western forts with). In his first major strike against Carthage, he captured the ancient city of Motya (one of the oldest city's in Sicily. Always Phoenician-held). However, Himilco was able to recapture the city and again struck westwards. Again, a plague struck his army, and Dionysius eventually forced the Carthaginians away. However, the Syracusan-Carthaginian conquest would go on until 392 (peace treaty). During the peace with Carthage, Dionysius conquered Rehgium in southern Italy, as was Croton, Carthage's ally in Italy. He attempted another advance at the Carthaginian but was defeated. He had begun yet another war against Carthage in in 368, but died shortly therafter.

 

Agathocles: Ruled Syracuse from 316-288 BC. After the death of Alexander III, conflicts between the oligarchs and democrats surfaced again in Syracuse. Acting as democratic commander, Agathocles crushed the oligarchs, then turned about and became the city's sole ruler. He immediately conquered some Sicilian towns, but his popularity dwindled anyway. To win support, he launched an attack on Carthage. The Carthaginians pushed him back and laid siege to Syracuse. During the siege, Agathocles sailed to Africa, with the intent of heading to Carthage itself. He won a victory in Africa, and threatened Carthage. However, rather than risk their city, the Carthaginians in Sicily sued for peace. Interestingly, while on his death bed, Agathocles didn't name either of his sons his heir, choosing to restore the democracy instead.

[Favonius Cornelius]

('Sicel'-inhabited)

 

 

Know much of these 'Sicel'?

[Guest Scanderbeg]

Valens, would you happen to be Lannes on allempire.com forum?

[Valens]

Know much of these 'Sicel'?

Just a term I picked up from Thucydides. These natives reigned supreme in many interior cities (Entella, Segesta, Enna, Agyrium, Aetna, etc.), at least as long as a Greek tyrant wasn't pestering them. I know nothing about their culture, but I know that at least some adopted Hellenic cultural aspects (I'd guess most were evntually Hellenized). A good example is Ducetius, the most famous native ruler. He allowed his realm to become Hellenized militarily, administratively (in fact, sources say he reigned in a similar fashion to the Greek tyrants), and likely culturally. Interestingly enough, embracing Hellenistic adminstration and war waging gave him the ability to fight and defeat the Greeks in the east. And indeed, he did, campaigning unblemished until Syracuse and Acragas were able to defeat him in 451BC.

 

Valens, would you happen to be Lannes on allempire.com forum?

 

 

Yep.

[Philhellene]

But which of the many Sicilian tyrants do you think was the greatest? Why? I'll provide a few notable 'tyrants', and some of their feats to aid discussion...

 

I would add Aristodemus of Cumae.

 

Suda, s.v. "Aristodemos":

 

Son of Aristokrates [and] tyrant of Italian Cumae, a man who because of his birth was not just an ordinary man; he was called "Softy" by the citizens - and in time the nickname was more familiar than his [real] name - either because he was an effeminate boy and let himself be treated like a girl, or because he was by nature mild and slow to anger.

 

He waged wars against the Etruscans and defeated them in some battles.

[julieboy]

What were the populations of some of the Sicilian towns mentioned above? How many Carthaginians or other conquerors did it take to take over these ancient towns?

[Kosmo]

Not a tyrant, but a king of Epyrrhus, Pirus tried to unite all Sicilly by defeating the Cartaginians. He also tried to control the South of Italy, but was opposed by Rome.

His campaign in Sicilly was victorious and he was able to control all Sicilly except the western town of Lilybaeum.

A thing that I don't understand was his failure to keep this areas when he was unopposed and how he left without any benefit. Some conflicts with his allies are recorded, but still, his failure it's surprising.

[julieboy]

Not sure if Frederick II was a tyrant or not,and he was ruling Sicilyafter the Roman Empire. I believe he ruled the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies,which was Sicily and Southern Italy,which is today's Southern Italy or Mezzogiorno,as it is called.

 

Frederick II exiled a large number(maybe 40,000 or more,but the number is uncertain to me).They were supposedly the worst of the Sicilians in Frederick 11's view. He sent them to Bari in Southeast Italy ,in the region of today's Apulia.

 

My question is were they criminals,or rebels against his rule? Or were they perhaps exiled because they were possibly arabs left over from Saracen rule of Sicily and parts of South Italy?

[Neos Dionysos]

Not a tyrant, but a king of Epyrrhus, Pirus tried to unite all Sicilly by defeating the Cartaginians. He also tried to control the South of Italy, but was opposed by Rome.

His campaign in Sicilly was victorious and he was able to control all Sicilly except the western town of Lilybaeum.

A thing that I don't understand was his failure to keep this areas when he was unopposed and how he left without any benefit. Some conflicts with his allies are recorded, but still, his failure it's surprising.

 

 

I think it has to do more with he was a genunie 'crusader of the Greeks'... meaning, when Tarentum called for his aid, he came... when Syracuse called... he came... his benifit perhaps was to gain more allies etc, but personally it may have been knowing that he was keeping the Greeks 'Greek', under thier own rule etc. I could be romantizing him but it's what I get from his character and from his actions, each time he comes to thier aid, his allies and those who ask for his help, turn thier cheeks to him and just act against his advice etc. and then hate him for being there as well, I kinda see him as an almost tragic figure.

[Kosmo]

I see your point, but he and his allies failed to provide a long term solution for the survival of that important hellenic area. Greek individualism was again selfdefeating. He needed to convince Tarentum of the importance of Syracusa and Syracusa of the importance of Tarentum. And also to make the smaller cities of Sicilly and South Italy to see his rule as better then that of "barbarians" or larger cities.

Possibly monarchy was disliked in those areas and in the moment that he failed to take Lilybaeum the cities of Sicilly considered themselves safer without cartagian pressure and broke the alliance. Not a bad move if they could defend themselves against Rome and Carthage while keeping the locals quiet. But they, obviously, could not do that anymore. Tarentum had reasons to keep the alliance as Rome had no intention to stop fighting.

 

An interesting example was the faith of the cities of the west Black Sea.

They came under some degree of macedonian authority under Filip II and Alexander. After the death of Alexander they were ruled by Lysimah the diadoh of Thracia. His high taxes made those cities that usually fighted against each other to revolt against Lysimah with the help of the getic (eastern dacians) kings from the north of Danube. This alliance fought Lysimah and his two attacks to the north of Danube were defeated. Lysimah was able to control them finnaly, but his state failed to resist after his death. The area south of the Balkan Mountains came under the rule of the celtic kings of Tylis that asked for huge amounts of money as tribute, while the areas north of the mountains came incresingly under pressure of getic/dacic kings. The attempts to use the pontic federation that Mithridates set up against the inland barbarians that were bankrupting the cities brought the wrath of Rome and the devastating attacks of Burebista that destroyed some of this cities.

 

In my opinion, the greeks failed to see the increasing power of "barbarians" and the threat that this power represented for them. They fiercely kept their independence against each other or the hellenistic kings and were defeated one by one until Rome became the panhellenic federation that they failed to do.