Himilco

(Ἱμίλκων). Considerable variations are found in the MSS. (especially of Greek authors) in the mode of writing this name, which is frequently confounded with Hamilcar, and written Ἀμίλκων, Ἱμίλκας, or even Ἀμίλκας (see Wesseling, ad Diod. 14.49). It is probable indeed that Hamilcar and Himilco are only two forms of the same name: both were of common occurrence at Carthage.

1. A Carthaginian, mentioned by Pliny (Plin. Nat. 2.67) as having conducted a voyage of discovery from Gades towards the north, along the western shores of Europe, at the same time that Hanno undertook his well-known voyage along the west coast of Africa. [Hanno the Navigator.] He is not elsewhere referred to by Pliny, but is quoted repeatedly as an authority by Festus Avienus in his geographical poem called Ora Maritima (vv. 117, 383, 412, ed. Wernsdorf, in the Poetae Latini Minores, vol. v. pars 3). It appears from the passages there cited that Himilco had represented his farther progress as prevented by the stagnant nature of the sea, loaded with sea weed, and the absence of wind, statements which do not speak highly for his character as a discoverer. His voyage is said to have lasted four months, but it is impossible to judge how far it was extended. Perhaps it was intentionally wrapt in obscurity by the commercial jealousy of the Carthaginians, and the fabulous statements just alluded to may have been designed to prevent navigators of other nations from following in the same track. We have no clue to the period at which this expedition was undertaken: Pliny says only that it was during the flourishing times of Carthage (Carthaginis potentia florente). Heeren (Ideen. vol. iv. p. 539) and Bötticher (Gesch. d. Carthager, p. 17) are disposed to regard this Himilco as the same with No. 2, the grandson of Mago; but there are no sufficient grounds for this supposition.

2. A son of Hamilcar, and grandson of Mago, mentioned by Justin (19.2 init.), of whom nothing more is known, for the Himilco subsequently mentioned in the same chapter is clearly the same as the subject of the next article, though Justin seems to have confounded the two.

3. Son of Hanno, commander, together with Hannibal, the son of Gisco, in the great Carthaginian expedition to Sicily, B. C. 406. His father is probably the same Hanno mentioned by Justin (19.2) among the sons of Hamilcar, in which case Himilco and Hannibal were first cousins. Diodorus (13.80) expressly states them to have been of the same family. It was probably this relationship that induced the Carthaginians, when Hannibal manifested some reluctance to undertake the command of a new expedition, to associate Himilco with him. The forces placed under their joint command amounted, according to Timaeus and Xenophon, to 120,000 men: Ephorus, with his usual exaggeration, stated them at 300,000. (Diod. 13.80; Xen. Hell. 1.5.21.) With this great army the two generals formed the siege of Agrigentum, and directed their attacks against it on several points at once. In the course of the works they constructed for this purpose, they destroyed many sepulchres, a circumstance to which the superstitious fears of the multitude attributed a pestilence that broke out in the camp soon afterwards, and which carried off many victims, Hannibal among the rest. Himilco, now left sole general, after attempting to relieve the religious apprehensions of his soldiers by propitiatory sacrifices, continued to press the siege with vigour. The arrival of Daphnaeus with a body of Syracusan and other auxiliaries for a time changed the face of affairs, and Himilco was even blockaded in his camp, and reduced to great straits for want of provisions; but having, with the assistance of his fleet, intercepted a Syracusan convoy, he was relieved from this difficulty, and soon recovered the advantage. The famine, which now made itself felt in its turn in the besieged city, the dissensions of the Sicilian generals, and the incapacity or treachery of some among them, at length led to the abandonment of Agrigentum, of which Himilco thus became master, after a siege protracted for nearly eight months. (Diod. 13.80-89; Xen. Hell. 1.5.21, 2.2.24.) Here he took up his quarters for the winter, and in the spring of 405 advanced against Gela, to which he laid siege. Dionysius, then just established as tyrant of Syracuse, led a large force to its relief, but was defeated in the first encounter, on which he at once withdrew, taking with him the whole population, not only of Gela, but of Camarina also. The cities, thus abandoned, naturally fell, without a struggle, into the hands of Himilco; but of his farther operations we know nothing, except that a pestilence broke out in his army, which led him to make offers of peace to the Syracusans. These were gladly accepted, and the terms of the treaty were highly advantageous to Carthage, which retained, in addition to its former possessions, Selinus, Himera, and Agrigentum, besides which Gela and Camarina were to pay her tribute, and remain unfortified. (Diod. 13.91, 108-114.)

Himilco now returned to Africa, but his army carried with it the seeds of pestilence, which quickly spread from the soldiers to the inhabitants, and committed dreadful ravages, which appear to have extended through a period of several years. Carthage was thus sorely weakened, and wholly unprepared for war, when, in 397, Dionysius, who had spent several years in preparations, sent a herald to declare war in form against the Carthaginians. They were thus unable to prevent his victorious progress from one end of the island to the other, or even to avert the fall of Motya, their chief, and almost their last, strong-hold in Sicily. All that Himilco, who still held the chief command, and who was about this time advanced to the voluntary dignity of king or suffete (Diod. 14.54), could do, was to attempt the destruction of Dionysius's fleet, by attacking it suddenly with 100 triremes, when most of the ships were drawn up on shore ; but foiled in this, he was obliged to return to Africa. Meanwhile, however, he had been actively engaged in preparations, and by the following spring (B. C. 396), he had assembled a numerous fleet and' a army of 100,000 men, with which he landed at Panormus, though not without heavy loss, having been attacked on the voyage by Leptines, and many of his ships sunk. But once arrived in Sicily, he quickly regained the advantage, recovered possession of Eryx and Motya, and corpelled Dionysius to fall back towards the eastern side of the island, on which the Sicanians immediately declared in favour of Carthage.

Thus again master of the western part of Sicily, Himilco advanced along the north coast both with his fleet and army; and having effected his march without opposition as far as Messana, surprised that city during the absence of most of the inhabitants, and levelled it to the ground; after which he directed his march southwards, against Syracuse itself. Dionysius had advanced with a large army to meet him, but the defection of his Sicilian allies, and the total defeat of his fleet by that of the Carthaginians under Mago, excited his apprehensions for the safety of Syracuse, and he hastened to shut himself up with his army within the walls of that city. Himilco, thus finding no enemy to oppose him in the field, advanced at once with his army to the very gates of Syracuse, and encamped on the same ground previously occupied by the Athenians under Nicias, while his fleet of 208 triremes, besides a countless swarm of transports, occupied, and almost filled, the great port. For 30 days Himilco ravaged the neighbouring country unopposed, and repeatedly offered battle to the Syracusans; but though he made himself master of one of the suburbs, he does not appear to have made any vigorous attacks on the city itself. Meanwhile, a fever, caused by the marshy nature of the ground in which he was encamped and the great heat of the summer, broke out in his army, and soon assumed the character of a malignant pestilence. This visitation was attributed by the Greeks to the profanation of their temples; and Dionysius took advantage of the confidence thus inspired to make a sudden attack upon the Carthaginian camp both by sea and land, which proved completely successful; a great part of their fleet was either sunk, burnt, or captured; and Himilco, despairing of retrieving his fortune, immediately sent proposals to Dionysius for a secret capitulation, by which he himself, together with the native Carthaginians under his command, should be permitted to depart unmolested, on payment of a sum of 300 talents. These terms were gladly accepted by the Syracusans, and Himilco made his escape under cover of the night, leaving all the forces of his allies and mercenary troops at the mercy of Dionysius. But though lie thus secured his personal safety, as well as that of the Carthaginian citizens in his army, a termination at once so ignominions and so disastrous to a campaign that had promised so much, caused him, on his return to Carthage, to be overwhelmed with obloquy, until at length unable to bear the weight of odium that he had incurred, he put an end to his life by abstinence. (Diod. 14.41, 47-76; Just. 19.2.)

4. One of the generals appointed by the Carthaginians to conduct the war in Africa against Archagathus, the son of Agathocles. He totally defeated the division of the Syracusan forces under the command of Eumachus, and put them almost all to the sword. After this he occupied the passes and strongholds in the neighbourhood of Tunis, so as completely to blockade Archagathus in that city. (Diod. 20.60, 61.) What part he took in the subsequent operations against Agathocles himself is not mentioned.

5. Commander of the Carthaginian forces at Lilybaeum during the first Punic war. At what time he was sent to Sicily does not appear, but we find him in command of Lilybaeum when the Romans, after the great victory of Metellus over Hasdrubal (B. C. 250), determined to form the siege of that important fortress. Himilco appears to have done all that an energetic and able officer could do: the forces under his command amounted to only 10,000 regular troops, while the Romans are said to have brought not less than 110,000 men to the siege; but this must, of course, include all who took part in the works, not merely the fighting men. Both consuls (C. Atilius and L. Manlius) were with the Roman army, and they carried on their operations with the utmost vigour, endeavouring to block up the port by a great mole, at the same time that they attacked the walls on the land side with battering rams and other engines. Himilco, on his side, though he had to contend with disaffection among the mercenaries under his own command, as well as with the enemy without the walls, was not less active; but he was unable to prevent the progress of the Roman works on the land: a great storm, however, swept away the mole that the Romans were constructing; and Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, succeeded in running into the port with 50 ships and a force of 10,000 men, in the very teeth of the Roman fleet. Thus reinforced, Himilco renewed his attacks upon the works of the besiegers; and though repulsed in a first sally, he ultimately succeeded in burning all the battering engines and other works of the Romans. This decisive blow compelled the consuls to turn the siege into a blockade: nor were they able to make even this effectual, as they could not succeed in cutting off the besieged altogether from their communications by sea. The next year (B. C. 249) the great victory of Adherbal at Drepanum rendered the Carthaginians once more masters of the sea; and Himilco is again mentioned as co-operating with Carthalo after that event, in the attempt to destroy the Roman squadron, which still kept guard before Lilybaeum. The enterprise was only partially successful; but from this time the communications of the city by sea appear to have been perfectly open. The name of Himilco occurs once more in the following year as opposing the operations of the consuls Caecilius and Fabius, but this is the last we hear of him; and we have no means of judging how long he continued to hold the command of Lilybaeum, or when he was succeeded by Gisco, whom we find in that situation at the conclusion of the war. (Plb. 1.41_48, 53; Diod. Exc. Hoeschel. 24.1; Zonar. 8.15, 16.)

6. A Carthaginian, who commanded the fleet of Hasdrubal in Spain in 217 B. C. He was attacked by Cn. Scipio at the mouth of the Iberus, and completely defeated, twenty-five ships out of forty taken, and the rest driven to the shore, where the crews with difficulty made their escape. (Liv. 22.19, 20; Plb. 3.95, by whom he is called Hamilcar. See Hamilcar, No. 10.)

7. A Carthaginian senator, who is represented by Livy (23.12) as a warm supporter of the Barcine party, and as upbraiding Hanno with his opposition, when Mago brought to Carthage the tidings of the victory at Cannae. It is possible that he is the same who was soon after sent to Spain with an army to hold that province, while Hasdrubal advanced into Italy (Liv. 23.28); but this is a mere conjecture. It is remarkable that the Himilco just referred to, though entrusted with so important a command, is not again mentioned in history; at least there are no sufficient grounds for identifying him with any of those hereafter enumerated.

8. An officer in the army of Hannibal, who reduced the town of Petelia in Bruttium (B. C. 216), after a siege of several months' duration, during which the inhabitants had suffered the greatest extremities of famine. (Liv. 23.20, 30.) This conquest is ascribed by Appian (Annib. 29) to Hanno, who, in fact, held the chief command in Bruttium at this time.

9. Commander of the Carthaginian forces in Sicily during a part of the second Punic war. He is first mentioned as commanding the fleet which was sent over from Carthage in B. C. 214, about the time that Marcellus first arrived in Sicily; but he appears to have remained inactive at Cape Pachynus, watching the operations of the enemy, but without effecting any thing decisive (Liv. 24.27, 35). From thence he returned to Carthage; and having received from the government there, who were now determined to prosecute the war in Sicily with energy, an army of 25,000 foot and 3000 horse, he landed with this force at Heraclea Minoa, and quickly made himself master of Agrigentum. Here he was joined by Hippocrates from Syracuse; and following Marcellus, who retreated before him, he advanced to the banks of the Anapus. But the Roman camp was too strong to be forced, and Himilco, feeling confident that the Syracusans could be left to their own resources, turned his attention to the other cities of Sicily. The spirit of hostility to Rome was rapidly spreading among these, and several openly declared in favour of the Carthaginians. Murgantia, where great part of the Roman magazines had been collected, was betrayed into the hands of Himilco; and the still more important fortress of Enna was only prevented from following its example by the barbarous massacre of its inhabitants by the orders of the Roman governor, Pinarius. [Pinarius.] But in the following spring (212) the surprise of the Epipolae by Marcellus, which put him in possession of three out of the five quarters of Syracuse, more than counterbalanced all these advantages of the Carthaginians. Himilco saw the necessity of an immediate effort to relieve Syracuse, and again advanced thither in conjunction with Hippocrates. But their attacks on the Roman lines were repulsed; and a pestilence, caused by the marshy ground on which they were encamped, broke out in their army, which carried off Himilco, as well as his colleague, Hippocrates. (Liv. 24.35_39, 25.23, 26; Zonar. 9.4.)

10. A Carthaginian officer, who commanded the Punic garrison at Castulo in 206 B. C., when that city was betrayed into the hands of Scipio by the Spaniard Cerdubellus. (Liv. 28.20.)

11. Surnamed Phamaeas or Phameas (Φαμαίας, Appian; Φαμέας, Zonar.), commander of the Carthaginian cavalry in the third Punic war. Being young, active, and daring, and finding himself at the head of an indefatigable and hardy body of troops, he continually harassed the Roman generals, prevented their soldiers from leaving the camp for provisions or forage, and frequently attacked their detachments with success, except, it is said, when they were commanded by Scipio. By these means he became an object of terror to the Romans, and contributed greatly to the success of the Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal, especially on occasion of the march of Manilius upon Nepheris. But in the course of this irregular warfare having accidentally fallen in with Scipio (at that time one of the tribunes in the Roman army), he was led by that officer into a conference, in which Scipio induced him to abandon the cause of Carthage as hopeless, and desert to the Romans. This resolution he put in execution on occasion of the second expedition of Manilius against Nepheris (B. C. 148), when he went over to the enemy, carrying with him the greater part of the troops under his command. He was sent by Manilius with Scipio to Rome, where the senate rewarded him for his treachery with a purple robe and other ornaments of distinction, as well as with a sum of money. After this he returned to Africa, but we do not learn that he was able to render any important services to the Romans in their subsequent operations. (Appian, App. Pun. 97, 100, 104, 107, 109; Zonar. 9.27; Eutrop. 4.10.) [E.H.B]

(equivalent in Punic to gratia Milcaris, “the favour of Milcar”). The Greek form is Ἱμίλκων. The name of several Carthaginians. (1) A Carthaginian commander, who is said by Pliny (ii. 67) to have been contemporary with Hanno the navigator. He was sent by his government to explore the northwestern coast of Europe. A few fragments of this voyage are preserved by Avienus (Ora Marit. i. 90), in which the Hiberni and Albioni are mentioned, and also a promontory, Oestrymnis, and islands called Oestrymnides, which are usually considered to be Cornwall and the Scilly Islands.

(2) A Carthaginian, who took Agrigentum in 406, and commanded in the wars with Dionysius I., tyrant of Syracuse, B.C. 405-368. Himilco was an able and successful general. He took Gela, Messana, and many other cities in Sicily, and at length besieged Syracuse by sea and land, but was finally defeated by Dionysius, who burned most of the Carthaginian vessels ( Diod. Sic. bks. xiii. and xiv.). Hamilco, in his despair, ended his life by voluntary starvation.

(3) A supporter of the Barcine party at Carthage (Livy, xiii. 12). He was sent by the Carthaginian government to oppose Marcellus in Sicily (Livy, xxiv. 35 foll.Livy, xxv. 23 foll.).