This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 In the light of the narrative that has just preceded the leisurely progress of the consul after the battle is hard to explain or defend. A more relentless pursuit by the cavalry, reinforced with light infantry, and liaison with the fleet of Atilius, which was operating off the eastern coast, might easily have resulted in the capture of the king and the final termination of the war. Instead of following the coast route after the battle, Glabrio marched well inland, with no apparent motive, and the time he thus consumed (note especially per omnes dies in xx. 1 above) gave the king the opportunity to reach Chalcis, reorganize the remnant of his forces, and make good his escape. We should remember that communications were slow and uncertain for both sides and information scanty and unreliable. It should also be pointed out that Livy shows no sign that he considers Acilius delinquent in any way, and there is no mention of any criticism on this ground a year later, when he was sharply criticized for other things (XXXVII. lvii. 10-15).
2 B.C. 191
3 These details might almost have been taken from some eulogistic biography (or autobiography?) of Cato: cf. the note to XXXIV. xxi. 8. The account in Plutarch (Cato xiv) differs in several respects. According to it Cato was sent immediately after the battle, that he might be the first to report his own achievements; the route was different but the five-day land journey is the same; there is no mention of Scipio.
4 Scipio had been defeated in the consular election for this year (XXXV. xxiv. 4) but was elected for the following year (xlv. 9 below). There is no other reference to his presence in Greece, and Livy may have confused his visit to Rome with one of Publius Scipio to announce a victory in Gaul (xxxix. 4 below).
5 For his appointment to Spain see XXXIV. Iv. 6; cf. also xxxix. 1 below.
6 B.C. 191
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.