Regulus' Army In Africa

[jermus22]

The first campaign of Roman legions in Africa (during the First Punic War) was marked with great initial success before ending in terrible disaster. After defeating the Carthaginian navy at the battle of Ecnomus in 256 b.c., a Roman invasion fleet of allegedly 370 ships sailed for Africa. The original fleet consisted of 330 ships, and despite losing 24 in the battle, these had been replaced with 64 captured Carthaginian galleys from the battle (Polybius 1.28.10-14). Polybius (1.26.7-8) records that there were roughly 300 crew members and 120 marines per Roman ship when the battle began, a total of 138,600 men. We can't be sure how many men were in the fleet after the battle; perhaps quite a few marines were used to crew the captured ships or maybe crews were drawn from Roman allies in Sicily. Rome certainly had little trouble finding men for her crews and armies.

The Roman fleet arrived at Cape Hermaia (now Cape Bon or Rass Adder) and began a siege of "the city called Aspis," which could very well have been modern Kelibia (the Roman Clupea). This city acted as a shield for the Carthaginian plantations on Cape Bon, and after its capture, the Romans were free to ravage the territory, seizing much of the land's produce as well as some 20,000 slaves.

When news arrived from Rome for one of the consuls to return, leaving an adequate army to control the region, M. Atilius Regulus was chosen to stay with a force of 15,000 infantry, 500 cavalry, and 40 ships while his counterpart L. Manlius Vulso would return with the remaining fleet and army (Polybius 1.29.8-10). This small army would go on to campaign effectively for the next year in Africa, laying siege to the city of Adys and defeating a Carthaginian field army outside the city. The feats of Regulus' army at Adys are clearly exaggerated by historians like Orosius and Eutropius. The former claims, for example, that the Romans killed 17,000 men and captured a further 5,000 along with 18 elephants (Orosius 4.8.16) while Eutropius claims the same casualties except that 18,000 were killed (Eutropius 2.21.3). Orosius continues by claiming that the Romans secured the surrender of a further 82 towns (Eutropius claimed 74) before seizing the town of Tunis, some ten miles from Carthage. After the seizure of Tunes, failed negotiation attempts commenced and the Carthaginians turned the command of their remaining army to a Spartan mercenary named Xanthippos. He led out an army of 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, and 100 elephants to fight the Romans (Polybius 1.32.9), and Regulus gladly accepted the challenge. In a bloody battle, the Romans were soundly defeated, losing all but 2,000 men who escaped to Aspis (Polybius 34.8-10?). Regulus was captured, but a Roman fleet did manage to recover the men at Aspis (although a storm practically annihilated the fleet during its return voyage).

With all of this being said, one wonders whether such an army as small as Regulus' could have accomplished the victories credited to it. They managed to successfully capture to cities (Adys and Tunis) while defeating an army outside of Adys, and they still were large enough to confidently meet another Carthaginian army before being defeated. Could an army of less than 16,000 men have managed such a campaign? Both Eutropius (2.21.4) and Orosius (4.9.3), along with Appian (Lib. 3), claim that Regulus had 30,000 men when facing Xanthippos. Although all three historians are by no means trustworthy sources like Polybius, one must question whether Polybius failed to make mention of reinforcements before the battle. Or is it possible that his numbers of 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry at the beginning of the campaign actually were the numbers present at the beginning of the battle with Xanthippos? Please discuss and offer suggestions. This problem has puzzled me for some time.

 

I am extremely indebted to J. F. Lazenby's The First Punic War for all information used in this report. In some portions of this post I have practically followed Lazenby verbatim from chapters 6 & 7 of his book. I just wanted to clarify that issue so no one would assume I was trying to plagiarize. If anyone is interested in the book, it was published in 1996 by Stanford University Press (Originating publisher: UCL Press Limited, London) and can be found on any number of websites.