Hanno
Could not find Hannonem in Logeion dictionaries.
Hannonem Proper-name noun: masculine accusative singular of Hanno
- a Punic name. The most celebrated of the name is Hanno, general of the Carthaginians, who, about the year 500 B.C., navigated the western coast of Africa, Plin. 5, 1, 1, § 8; Cic. Tusc. 5, 32, 90.
(Ἄννων.) This name seems to have been still more common at Carthage than those of Hamilcar and Hannibal; hence it is even more difficult to distinguish or identify, with any reasonable probability, the numerous persons that bore it. In the enumeration of them here given, it has been judged the safest plan to consider all those as distinct whom there are no sufficient grounds for identifying; though it is probable that several of them might prove to be the same person, if our information were more complete. But as we repeatedly meet with two or more Hannos in the same army, or engaged in the same enterprise, it is evident that no presumption arises of identity from the mere circumstance of their being contemporaries.
1. Father of the Hamilcar who was killed at Himera, B. C. 480, according to Herodotus (7.165). See Hamilcar, No. 1.
2. Son of the same Hamilcar, according to Justin (19.2). It is probable that this is the same with the father of Himilco, who took Agrigentum, B. C. 406 (Diod. 13.80); it being expressly stated by Diodorus that that general and Hannibal, the son of Gisco, who was also grandson of Hamilcar, No. ], were of the same family. Heeren (Ideen, vol. iv. p. 539) conjectures this Hanno to be the same with the navigator and author of the Periplus.
3. According to Justin (20.5), the commander of the Carthaginians in Sicily in one of their wars with Dionysius in the latter part of his reign (probably the last of all, concerning which we have little information in Diodorus), was named Hanno. He is apparently the same to whom the epithet Magnus is applied in the epitome of Trogus Pompeius (Prol. xx.); and it is probable that the twentieth book of that author contained a relation of the exploits in Africa by which he earned this title. These are omitted by Justin, who, however, speaks of Hanno in the following book (21.4) as "princeps Carthaginiensium," and as possessed of private wealth and resources exceeding those of the state itself. This great power led him, according to the same author, to aim at possessing himself of the absolute sovereignty. After a fruitless attempt to poison the senators at a marriage-feast, he excited a rebellion among the slaves, but his schemes were again frustrated, and he fled for refuge to a fortress in the interior, where he assembled an army of 20,000 men, and invoked the assistance of the Africans and Moors. But he soon fell into the hands of the Carthaginians, who crucified him, together with his sons and all his kindred. (Just. 21.4, 22.7.) The date of this event, which is related only by Justin and Orosius (4.6, who copies Justin almost verbatim), and incidentally alluded to by Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 5.7), must apparently be placed between the first expulsion and the return of the younger Dionysius, i. e. between 356 and 346 B. C. There is a Hanno mentioned by Polyaenus (5.9) as commanding a Carthaginian fleet on the coast of Sicily against Dionysius, who may be the same with the above. Bötticher also conjectures (Gesch. der Carthager, p. 178) that the Hanno mentioned by Diodorus (16.81) as the father of Gisco [Gisco, No. 2] is no other than this one; but there is no proof of this supposition.
4. Commander of the Carthaginian fleet and army sent to Sicily in B. C. 344, according to Diodorus (16.67). In all the subsequent operations of that expedition, Plutarch speaks of Mago as the Carthaginian commander (Timol. 17-20); but in one place (Ib. 19), he mentions Hanno as lying in wait with a squadron to intercept the Corinthian ships. Whether the same person is meant in both these cases, or that Hanno in Diodorus is merely a mistake for Mago, it seems impossible to decide.
5. One of the generals appointed to take the field against Agathocles when the latter had effected his landing in Africa, B. C. 310. He is said to have had an hereditary feud with Bomilcar, his colleague in the command, which did not, however, prevent their co-operation. In the battle that ensued Hanno commanded the right wing, and placed himself at the head of the sacred battalion, a select body of heavy infantry, apparently native Carthaginians, with which he attacked the enemy's left wing vigorously, and for a time successfully, but at length fell covered with wounds, on which his troops gave way. (Diod. 20.10_12; Just. 22.6; comp. Oros. 4.6.)
6. One of the three generals appointed to act against Archagathus, the son of Agathocles, in Africa. He totally defeated the Syracusan general, Aeschrion, who was opposed to him. (Diod. 20.59, 60.)
7. Commander of the Carthaginian garrison at Messana, at the beginning of the first Punic war, B. C. 264. It appears that while one party of the Mamertines had sent to request assistance from Rome, the adverse faction had had recourse to Carthage, and had actually put Hanno with a body of Carthaginian troops in possession of the citadel. Hence, when the Roman officer, C. Claudius, came to announce to the Mamertines that the Romans were sending a force to their support, and called on them to eject the Carthaginians, no answer was returned. On this, Claudius retired to Rhegium, where he collected a few ships, with which he attempted to pass into Sicily. His first attempt was easily baffled, and some of his ships fell into the hands of Hanno, who sent them back to him with a friendly message; but, on receiving a haughty answer, he declared that he would not suffer the Romans even to wash their hands in the sea. Nevertheless, Claudius eluded his vigilance, and landed at Messana, where he held a conference with the Mamertines, in which Hanno having been incautiously induced to take a part, was treacherously seized by the Romans and detained a prisoner. In order to procure his liberty, he consented to withdraw the garrison from the citadel, and surrender it to the Romans; a concession, for which, on his return to Carthage, the council of elders condemned him to be crucified. (Dio Cass. Fr. Vut. 59, 60; Zonar. 8.8, 9; Plb. 1.11.)
8. Son of Hannibal, was sent to Sicily by the Carthaginians with a large force immediately after the events just related. Alarmed at the support given to the Mamertines by the Romans, he concluded an alliance with Hieron, and they hastened to besiege Messana with their combined forces (B. C. 264). Hieron encamped on the south side of the town, while Hanno established his army on the north, and his fleet lay at Cape Pelorus. Yet he was unable to prevent the passage of the Roman army, and the consul, Appius Claudius, landed at Messana with a force of 20,000 men, with which he first attacked and defeated Hieron, and then turned his arms against the Carthaginians. Their camp was in so strong a position, that they at first repulsed the Romans, but were afterwards defeated, and compelled to retire towards the west of Sicily, leaving the open country at the mercy of the enemy. (Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 23.2; Plb. 1.11, 12, 15; Zonar. 8.9.)
It seems probable that this Hanno is the same as is styled by Diodorus "the elder " (ὁ πρεσβύτερος), when he is next mentioned, in the third year of the war (Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 23.8): of this, however, there is no proof. Hannibal, the other Carthaginian general in Sicily, was at that time shut up in Agrigentum, where he had been besieged, or rather blockaded, by the Romans more than five months, and was now beginning to suffer from want of provisions, when Hanno was ordered to raise the siege. For this purpose he assembled at Lilybaeum an army of 50,000 men, 6000 horse, and 60 elephants, with which formidable force he advanced to Heraclea; but though he made himself master of Erbessus, where the Romans had established their magazines, and thus reduced them for a time to great difficulties; and though he at first obtained some advantages by means of his Numlidian cavalry, he was eventually defeated in a great battle, and compelled to abandon Agrigentum to its fate, B. C. 262. (Plb. 1.18, 19; Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 23.8, 9; Zonar. 8.10; Oros. 4.7.) For this ill success Hanno was recalled by the Carthaginian senate, and compelled to pay a fine of 6000 pieces of gold (Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 23.9): he was succeeded by Hamilcar, but six years afterwards (B. C. 256), we again find him associated with that general in the command of the Carthaginian fleet at the great battle of Ecnomus. (Plb. 1.27; Oros. 4.8.) After that decisive defeat, Hanno is said to have been sent by Hamilear, who appears to have held the chief command, to enter into negotiations with the Roman generals; but failing in this, he sailed away at once, with the ships that still remained to him, to Carthage. (Dio Cass. Exc. Vat. 63; Zonar. 8.12; V. Max. 6.6. f. § 2.) His name is not mentioned in the subsequent operations; but as two generals of the name of Hanno are spoken of as commanding the Carthaginian army which was defeated at Clupea in 255 by the consuls Aemilius Paullus and Fulvius Nobilior (Oros. 4.9), it is not impossible that he was one of them.
9. Son of Hamilcar, one of the three ambassadors sent by the Carthaginians to Regulus, to sue for peace, after the defeat of their armies near Adis. (Diod. Exc. Vat. 23.4.)
10. A Hanno is mentioned both by Zonaras (8.12) and Orosius (4.7) as commanding in Sardinia during the first Punic war. Orositls states that he succeeded Hannibal (the son of Gisco), but was defeated and killed by L. Scipio, probably in B. C. 259. The same story is told by Valerius Maximus (5.1. ext. 2).
11. Commander of the Carthaginian fleet, which was defeated by Lutatius Catulus off the Aegates, B. C. 241. There are no means of determining whether he may not be the same with some one of those already mentioned; but it is certainly a mistake to confound him with the following [No. 12], which has been done by several authors. The particulars of the action off the Aegates are so fully given under the article Catulus [No. 1], that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Accordining to Zonaras (8.17), Hanno himself, with those ships which escaped destruction, hed directly to Carthage, where he met with the same fate that so often awaited their unsuccessful generals at the hands of the Carthaginians, and was crucified by order of the senate.
12. Surnamed the Great (ὁ Μέγας, Appian, App. Hisp. 4, Pun. 34, 49) apparently for his successes in Africa, was during many years the leader of the aristocratic party at Carthage, and, as such, the chief adversary of Hamilcar Barca and his sons. He is first mentioned as holding a command in Africa during the first Punic war, at which time he must have been quite a young man. We know very little of his proceedings there, except that he took Hecatompylus, a city said to have been both great and wealthy, but the situation of which is totally unknown. (Diod. Exc. Vales, xxiv. p. 565; Plb. 1.73.) Nor do we know against what nations of Africa his arms were directed, or what was the occasion of the war, though it seems probable that it arose out of the defection of the African cities from the Carthaginians during the expedition of Regulus. Whatever may have been the occasion of it, it appears that Hanno obtained so much distinction by his exploits in this war as to be regarded as a rival to his contemporary, Hamilcar Barea. According to Polybius, the favour with which Hanno was regarded by the government at home was due in part to the harshness and severity he displayed towards their African subjects, and to the rigour with which he exacted from these payment of the heavy taxes with which they were loaded. (Plb. 1.67, 72.) When the mercenaries that had been eniployed in Sicily, returned to Africa after the end of the first Punic war (B. C. 240), and were all assembled at Sicca, it was Hanno who was chosen to be the bearer to them of the proposition that they should abate some part of the arrears to which they were justly entitled. The personal unpopularity of the envoy added to the exasperation naturally produced by such a request, and Hanno, after vain endeavours to effect a negotiation through the inferior commanders, returned to Carthage. But when matters soon after came to an open rupture, and the mercenaries took up arms under Spendius and Matho, he was appointed to take the command of the army which was raised in all haste to oppose them. His previous wars against the Numidian and African troops were, however, far from qualifying him to carry on a campaign against an army disciplined by Hamilcar; and though he at first defeated the rebels under the walls of Utica, he soon after suftered them to surprise his camp, and this proof of his incapacity was followed by others as glaring. Yet notwithstanding that these disasters compelled the Carthaginians to have recourse to Hamilcar Barca, and that general took the field against the rebels, it would appear that Hanno was not deprived of his command, in which we find him soon after mentioned as associated with Hamilcar. But the two generals could not be brought to act together; and their dissensions rose to such a height, and were productive of so much mischief, that at length the Carthaginian government, finding it absolutely necessary to recal one of the two, left the choice to the soldiers themselves, who decided in favour of Hamilcar. Hanno was in consequence displaced: but his successor, Hannibal, having been made prisoner and put to death by the rebels, and Hamilcar compelled to raise the siege of Tunis, the government again interposed, and by the most strenuous exertions effected a formal reconciliation between the two rivals. Hanno and Hamilcar again assumed the roint command, and soon after defeated the rebel army in a decisive battle. The reduction of Utica and Hippo, of which the one was taken by Hamilcar, the other by Hanno, now completed the subjection of Africa. (Plb. 1.74, 81, 82, 87, 88.) If we may trust the statement of Appian (App. Hisp. 4, 5), llanno was again employed, together with Hamilcar, in another expedition against the Numidians and more western tribes of Africa, after the close of the war of the mercenaries; but was recalled from his command to answer some charges brought against him by his enemies at home. From this time forward he appears to have taken no active part in any of the foreign wars or enterprises of Carthage. But his influence in her councils at home was great, and that influence was uniformly exerted against Hamilcar Barca and his family, and against that democratic party in the state by whose assistance they maintained their power. On all occasions, from the landing of Barca in Spain till the return of Hannibal from Italy, a period of above thirty-five years, Hanno is represented as thwarting the measures of that able and powerful family, and taking the lead in opposition to the war with Rome, the great object to which all their efforts were directed. (Liv. 21.3, 10, 11, 23.12, 13; V. Max. 7.2, ext. § 13; Zonar. 8.22.) It is indeed uncertain how far we are entitled to regard the accounts given by Livy of his conduct on these occasions as historical: it is not very probable that the Romans were well acquainted with what passed in the councils of their enemies, and on one occasion the whole narrative is palpably a fiction. For Livy puts into the mouth of Hanno a long declamatory harangue against sending the young Hannibal to join Hasdrubal in Spain, though he himself tells us elsewhere that Hannibal had gone to Spain with his father nine years before, and never returned to Carthage from that time until just after the battle of Zama. (Liv. 21.3, compared with 30.35, 37.) Still there can be no doubt of the truth of the general fact that Hanno was the leader, or at least one of the leaders, of the party opposed to Hannibal throughout the second Punic War. As one of those desirous of peace with Rome, he is mentioned as interposing to preserve the Roman ambassadors from the fury of the Carthaginian populace in the year before the battle of Zama, B. C. 551; and, after that defeat, he was one of those sent as ambassadors to Scipio to sue for peace. (Appian, App. Pun. 34, 49.) After the close of the war, he is mentioned, for the last time, as one of the leaders of the Roman party in the disputes which were continually recurring between the Carthaginians and Masinissa (Appian, Ib. 68); but we have no information as to the period of his death.
The character of Hanno will be found drawn in a masterly manner by Sir W. Raleigh in his History of the World (book v. ch. i. sect. 11. p. 117, Oxf. edit.); though that writer has committed the mistake of confounding him with the general defeated at the Aegates [No. 11], an error into which Arnold also appears to have fallen. (Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 619.) So far as we know concerning him, we cannot but wonder at his bearing the title of " the Great," an epithet which few characters in history would appear less to deserve.
13. An officer sent by the Carthaginians to Sardinia in B. C. 239 to reduce the mercenaries there, who had followed the example of those in Africa, mutinied, and put to death their commander, Bostar. But no sooner did Hanno arrive in the island than his own troops declared in favour of the rebels, by whom he was taken prisoner and immediately crucified. (Plb. 1.79.)
14. One of ten ambassadors sent by the Carthaginians to Rome in B. C. 235 to avert the war which the Romans had threatened to declare in consequence of the alleged support given to the revolt in Sardinia. Hanno is said to have effected, by the bold and frank tone which he assumed, what all the previous embassies had failed to accomplish, and obtained a renewal of the peace on equitable terms. (Dio Cass. Exc. 150; Oros. 4.12.) From the terms in which he is mentioned by Dio Cassius and Orosius (Ἄννων τιρ--minimus homo inter legatos), he can hardly have been the same with the preceding, which would at first appear not improbable.
15. A Carthaginian officer left in Spain by Hannibal when that general crossed the Pyrenees, B. C. 218. An army of 10,000 foot and 1000 horse was placed under his orders, with which he was to guard the newly-conquered province between the Iberus and the Pyrenees. On the arrival of Cn. Scipio with a Roman army at Emporia, Hanno, alarmed at the rapid spread of disaffection throughout his province, hastened to engage the Roman general, but was totally defeated, the greater part of his army cut to pieces, and lie himself taken prisoner. (Plb. 3.35, 76; Liv. 21.23, 60.)
16. Son of Bomilcar, one of the most distinguished officers in the service of Hannibal during his expedition to Italy. According to Appian (Annib. 20) he was a nephew of that great general ; but a consideration of the ages of Hannibal and Hamilcar, as well as the silence of Polybius, renders this statement improbable. He was, however, a man of high rank, his father having been one of the kings or suffetes of Carthage. (Plb. 3.42.) His name is first mentioned at the passage of the Rhone, on which occasion he was detached by Hannibal to cross that river higher up than the spot where the main army was to effect its passage. This Hanno successfully performed, and, descending the left bank of the river, fell upon the flank and rear of the Gauls, who were engaged in obstructing the passage of Hannibal, and utterly routed them, so that the rest of the army was enabled to cross the river without opposition. (Plb. 3.42, 43; Liv. 21.27, 28.) We meet with no farther account of his services until the battle of Cannae (B. C. 216), on which memorable day he commanded the right wing of the Carthaginian army. (Plb. 3.114; Appian, Annib. 20, says the left.) After that great victory, he was detached by Hannibal with a separate force into Lucania, in order to support the revolt of that province. Here he was opposed in the following year (215) by a Roman army under Ti. Sempronits Longus, who defeated him in an action at Grumentum, in consequence of which he was compelled to withdraw into Bruttium. Before the close of the summer he was joined by Bomilcar with the reinforcements that had been sent from Carthage to Hannibal, and which he conducted in safety to that general in his camp before Nola. When Hannibal, after his unsuccessful attempts to reduce Nola, at length withdrew, to take up his winter-quarters in Apulia, he sent Hanno to resume the command in Bruttium, with the same force as before. The Bruttians themselves had all declared in favour of Carthage, but, of the Greek cities in that province, Locri alone had as yet followed their example. Hanno now added the important conquest of Crotona. Having thus effectually established his footing in this country, he was able to resume offensive operations, and was advancing (early in the summer of 214) to support Hannibal in Campania, with an army of about 18,000 men (chiefly Bruttians and Lucanians), when he was met near Beneventum by the praetor, Tib. Gracchus, and, after an obstinate combat, suffered a complete defeat. Yet we are told that he soon after gained in his turn a considerable advantage over Gracchus, notwithstanding which, he thought fit to retreat once more into Bruttium. (Liv. 23.37, 41, 43, 46, 24.1-3, 14_16, 20; Zonar. 9.4.) Here he was opposed the following summer (213) by an irregular force, collected together by one L. Pomponius, which he utterly routed and dispersed. (Liv. 25.1.) The next year (212) he was ordered by Hannibal to advance with a convoy of stores and provisions, for the supply of Capt)pa, which the Romans were threatening to besiege. The service was a delicate one, for both the Roman consuls were in Samnium with their respective armies, notwithstanding which Hanno conducted his lorce in safety to the neighbourhood of Beneventum, but the negligence of the Capuans, in not providing means of transport, caused so much delay, that the Romans had time to come up, and not only seized the greater part of the stores, but storied aitd plundered the camp of Hanno, who himself made his escape, with the remains of his force, into Bruttium. Not long after his return thither, he was able in some degree to compensate his late disaster by the important acquisition of Thurii. (Liv. 25.13-15; Appian, Annib. 34.)
From this time we in great measure lose sight of Hanno; though it is probable that it is still the same whom we find in command at Metapontum, in 207, and who was sent by Hannibal from thence into Bruttium, to raise a fresh army. (Liv. 27.42.) As we hear no more of his actions in Italy, and the Hanno who was appointed in 203 B. C., to succeed Hasdrubal Gisco in the command in Africa, is expressly called by Appian son of Bomilcar, there can be little doubt that it was the same as the subject of the present article, though we have no account of his return to Africa. It was after the final defeat of Hasdrubal and Syphax by Scipio, that Hanno assumed the command; and, in the state of affairs which he then found, it is no reproach to him that he effected little. He joined with Hasdrubal, although then an outlaw, in a plot for setting fire to the camp of Scipio, but the project was discovered, and thereby prevented; and he was repulsed in an attack upon the camp of Scipio before Utica. After this he appears to have remained quiet, awaiting the return of Hannibal from Italy: on the arrival of that general he was deposed from his command, the sole direction of all military affairs being confided to Hannibal. (Appian, App. Pun. 24, 29, 30, 31; Zonar. 9.12, 13.)
17. A Carthaginian of noble birth, said by Livy to have been the chief instigator of the revolt in Sardinia under Hampsicora during the second Punic war. He was taken prisoner, together with the Carthaginian general, Hasdrubal, in the decisive action which put an end to the war in that island, B. C. 215. (Liv. 23.41.)
18. A general sent from Carthage to carry on the war in Sicily after the fill of Syracuse, B. C. 211. He established his head-quarters at Agrigentum, where he was associated with Epicydes and Mutines. But his jealousy of the successes obtained by the latter led to the most unfortunate results. He took the opportunity of a temporary absence of Mutines to give battle to Marcellus; but the Numidian cavalry refused to fight in the absence of their leader, and the consequence was, that Hanno was defeated, with heavy loss. Marcellus, however, did not form the siege of Agrigentum, and Hanno thus remained master of that city, while Mutines, with his indefatigable cavalry, gave him the command of all the neighboring country. But his jealousy of that leader still containing, he was at length induced to take the imprudent step of depriving hint of his command. Mutines hereupon made overtures to the Roman general Laevinus, and betrayed the city of Agrigentum into his hands, Hanno and Epicydes with difficulty making their escape by sea to Carthage. This blow put a final termination to the war in Sicily, B. C. 210. (Liv. 25.40, 41, 26.40; Zonar. 9.7.)
19. An officer who was sent by Hannibal, in 212 B. C., with a force of 1000 horse and 1000 foot, to the defence of Capua, when the Romans began to threaten that city. According to Livy, Bostar was associated with him in the command. Though they made several vigorous sallies, in which their cavalry were often victorious, yet they were unable to prevent the Romans from completing their fortified lines around the city, which was thus entirely blockaded. Famine soon made itself felt, and the populace of the city became discontented; but the Carthaginian governors contrived to send tidings of their distress to Hannibal, who hastened to their relief out of Lucania. But though Hanno and Bostar seconded his efforts, by a vigorous sally from the city against the Roman camp, while Hannibal attacked it from without, all their exertions were in vain; and the daring march of Hannibal upon Rome itself having proved equally ineffectual in compelling the consuls to dislodge their troops from before Capua, the fall of that city became inevitable. Under these circumstances, the Campanians endeavoured to purchase forgiveness, by surrendering into the hands of the Romans the Carthaginian garrison, with its two commanders, B. C. 211. (Liv. 25.15, 26.5, 12; Appian, Annib. 36-43.) Appian (l.c.) carefully distinguishes this Hanno from the son of Bomilcar [No. 16], with whom he might have been easily confounded: the latter is distinctly mentioned as commanding in Lucania after the siege of Capua had commenced.
20. A Carthaginian general, who was sent in B. C. 208 to succeed Hasdrubal, the son of Barca, in Spain, when that general crossed the Pyrenees, on his march to Italy. Hanno united his forces with those of Mago in Celtiberia, and the two armies were encamped near each other, when they were attacked by Scipio's lieutenant, Silanus, and totally routed. Hanno fell into the hands of the enemy, and was sent by Scipio as a prisoner to Rome. (Liv. 28.1, 2, 4.)
21. An officer under Mago in Spain. When Mago, after the great defeat sustained by Hasdrubal Gisco and himself, in 206, took refuge at Gades, he employed Hanno in levying mercenaries among the neighboring Spanish tribes; the latter had succeeded in assembling a considerable force, when he was attacked and defeated by L. Marcius. He himself escaped from the field of battle with a small body of troops, but was soon after given up by his own followers to the Roman general. (Liv. 28.23, 30; Appian, App. Hisp. 31.)
22. A Carthaginian youth, of noble birth, who was sent out, with a body of 500 horse, to reconnoitre the army of Scipio, when that general first landed in Africa, B. C. 204. Having approached too near the Roman camp he was attacked by their cavalry, and cut to pieces, together with his detachment. (Liv. 29.29.)
23. Another officer of the same name shared the same fate shortly after, being led into a snare by Masinissa, and cut off, with above 1000 of his men. Livy, however, informs us that authors were not agreed whether there were two Hannos thus cut off in succession, or only one; and that some writers represented him to have been taken prisoner, and not killed. (Liv. 29.34, 3.5.) The last version of this history is that followed by Appian (App. Pun. 14) and by Zonaras (9.12), who state that he was immediately afterwards set at liberty, in exchange for the mother of Masinissa. According to Zonaras he was the son of Hasdrubal Gisco ; Livy, on the contrary, calls him son of Hamilcar-- what Hamilcar we know not, but certainly not the great Barca. (Comp. Eutrop. 3.20; Oros. 4.18.)
24. Surnamed Gillas, or Tigillas (Τίλλας, or Τιγίλλαρ), one of the ambassadors sent from Carthage to the consul Censorinus just before the beginning of the third Punic war, B. C. 119. Appian, who puts a long speech into his mouth on this occasion. calls him the most distinguished member of the embassy. (Appian, App. Pun. 82.) His name is written, in many of the MSS. Βάννων, which has been corrupted into Βλάννων in the extracts from Diodorus Siculus (Fragm. Urs. p. 627), and by Suidas into Βράνων.
25. Surnamed the White (Λεῦκορ), an officer under the command of Himilco Phamacas in the third Punic war, who, when that general went over to the Romans, prevented a part of his army from following his example. (Appian, App. Pun. 108.)
26. A Carthaginian of uncertain date, of whom a foolish story is told by Aelian (Ael. VH 14.30), that he taught a number of birds to repeat the words " Hanno is a god," and then let them loose; but the birds forgot their lesson as soon as they had regained their liberty. This anecdote is supposed by Bochart and Perizonius (Ad Ael. l.c.) to refer to I lanno the navigator, but certainly without foundation. It seems more probable that it may be the same who is mentioned by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 8.21), and by Plutarch (De Praec. Polit. vol. ix. p. 191, ed. Reisk.), as having been condemned to banishment because he had succeeded in taming a lion.
27. There is a Hanno mentioned by Dion Chrysostom (vol. i. p. 522, ed. Reiske) in terms which would seem to imply that he was one of the first founders of the Carthaginian greatness, but the passage is so vague and declamatory that it would be unsafe to found on it any historical inference.
28. Another Hanno is incidentally mentioned as a contemporary of Anacharsis, the Scythian philosopher, who addressed a letter to him which is preserved by Cicero. (Tusc. Qu. 5.22.) [E.H.B]
(Ἄννων), a Carthaginian navigator, under whose name we possess a περίπλους, or a short account of a voyage round a part of Libya. Works Voyage round Libya
The work was originally written in the Punic language, and what has come down to us is a Greek translation of the original. The work is often referred to by the ancients, but we have no statement containing any direct information by means of which we might identify its author, Hanno, with any of the many other Carthaginians of that name, or fix the time at which he lived. Pliny (Plin. Nat. 2.67, 5.1, 36) states that Hanno undertook the voyage at the time when Carthage was in a most flourishing condition. (Punicis rebus florentissimis, Carthaginis potentia florente.) Some call him king, and others dux or imperator of the Carthaginians, from which we may infer that he was invested with the office of suffetes. (Solin. 56; Hanno, Peripl. Introd.) In the little Periplus itself Hanno says that he was sent out by his countrymen to undertake a voyage beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and to found Libyphoenician towns, and that he sailed accordingly with sixty pentecontores, and a body of men and women, to the number of 30,000, and provisions and other necessaries. On his return from his voyage, he dedicated an account of it, inscribed on a tablet, in the temple of Cronos, or, as Pliny says, in that of Juno. (Comp. Pomp. Mela, 3.9; Marc. Heracl. Epit. Artemid. et Menip. ; Ath. 3.83.) It is therefore presumed that our periplus is a Greek version of the contents of that Punic tablet.
These vague accounts. leaving open the widest field for conjecture and speculation, have led some critics to place the expedition as early as the Trojan war or the time of Hesiod, while others place it as late as the reign of Agathocles. Others, as Falconer, Bougainville, and Gail, with somewhat more probability, place Hanno about B. C. 570. But it seems preferable to identify him with Hanno, the father or son of Hamilcar, who was killed at Himera, B. C. 480. [Hanno, Nos. 1, 2.] The fact of such an expedition at that time had nothing at all improbable, for in the reign of the Egyptian king Necho, a similar voyage had been undertaken by the Phoenicians, and an accurate knowledge of the western coast of Africa was a matter of the highest importance to the Carthaginians. The number of colonists, 30,000, is undoubtedly an error either of the translator or of later transcribers. This circumstance, as well as many fabulous accounts contained in the periplus, and the difficulties connected with the identification of the places visited by Hanno, and with the fixing of the southernmost point to which Hanno penetrated, are not sufficient reasons for denying the genuineness of the periplus, or for regarding it as the product of a much later age, as Dodwell did. Editions
The first edition of Hanno's Periplus appeared at Basel, 1534, 4to., as an appendix to Arrian, by S. Gelenius. This was followed by the editions of J. H. Boecler and J. J. Müller (Strassburg, 1661, 4to.), A. Berkel (Leyden, 1674, 12mo., with a Latin version by M. Gesner), and Thomas Falconer (London, 1797, whit an English translation, two dissertations and maps). It is also printed in Hudson's Geographi Minores, vol. i., which contains Dodwell's dissertation, De vero Peripli, qui Hannonis nomine circumfertur, Tempore, in which Dodwell attacks the genuineness of the work; but his arguments are satisfactorily refuted by Bougainville (Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript. xxvi. p. 10, &c., xxviii. p. 260, &c.), and by Falconer in his second dissertation. [L.S]
(Ἄννων, meaning in Punic “merciful” or “mild”). (1) A commander sent by the Carthaginians on a voyage of colonization and discovery along the Atlantic coast of Africa. This expedition is generally supposed to have taken place about B.C. 570. Gail, however, places it between B.C. 633 and 530. On his return to Carthage, Hanno deposited an account of his voyage in the temple of Moloch (Cronus). A translation of this account from the Punic into the Greek tongue has come down to us. The title of the Greek work is as follows: Ἄννωνος, Καρχηδονίων Βασιλέως, Περίπλους τῶν ὑπὲρ τὰς Ἡρακλέους Στήλας Λιβυκῶν τῆς Γῆς Μερῶν, ὅν καὶ Ἀνέθηκεν ἐν τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου Τεμένει. “The Voyage of Hanno , commander of the Carthaginians, round the parts of Libya beyond the Pillars of Heracles, which he deposited in the temple of Cronus.” With regard to the extent of coast actually explored by this expedition, some remarks have been made in another article. (See Africa.) The Periplus was translated into English by Falconer (1797). See Mer, Mémoire sur le Périple d'Hannon (Paris, 1888); and Antichan, Les Grands Voyages de Découvertes des Anciens (Paris, 1891).
(2) A Carthaginian commander, who aspired to the sovereignty of his native city. His design was discovered, and he thereupon retired to a fortress, with 20,000 armed slaves, but was taken and put to death with his son and all his relations (Just.xxi. 4).
(3) A commander of the Carthaginian forces in Sicily along with Bomilcar (B.C. 310). He was defeated by Agathocles, although he had 45,000 men under his orders, and his opponent only about 14,000 (Just.xxii. 6).
(4) A Carthaginian commander, defeated by the Romans near the Aegades Insulae (B.C. 242). On his return home he was put to death.
(5) A leader of the faction at Carthage opposed to the Barca family. He voted for surrendering Hannibal to the foe, after the ruin of Saguntum, and also for refusing assistance to that commander after the battle of Cannae (Livy, xxi. 3, xxiii. 12).
(6) A Carthaginian, who, wishing to pass for a god, trained up some birds, who were taught by him to repeat the words, “ Hanno is a god” (Aelian, Var. Hist. xv. 32).