Scipio sowing Carthage with salt

[Nihonius Legio]

I just dont see why it would be worth so much to a culture so near the sea. The majority of land owned by the Roman Empire was near the coasts, and most of it's largest cities were sea-side as well. I could understand people in central Germania putting a high price on salt, but people in Italy? Just go drink the ocean, there's plenty to go around.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol: That would be guaranteed to make you sick. :|

[A_Volpe]

wow...never thought about the cost of salt. That'd be pretty foolish to spend that much money/salt after levelling the city.

So perhaps it was a goofy way of saying "putting salt in the wound"? :?

[NightHunter24]

At best I could imagine that after the city was razed some ceremony was held where a handful of salt was thrown at the city while a Roman cursed the place.

Avete omnes,

I hope everyone's doing well. I was just browsing and started reading this thread. I'd go with Tomotheus' opinion on the ceremonial aspect of such. Even to this day in my family's tradition and in the ancestral homeland the sprinkling of salt is considered bad omen. So much so that my parents and grandparents when I was growing up would cringe at the site of even an accidental spill of salt.

Best regards,

[Nihonius Legio]

:lol: That would be guaranteed to make you sick. :|

Well I'm not saying to drink it down like it's free root beer :lol:
just a little bit.

[Epictetus]

I don't think they would drink salt water. Vitruvius mentions how salt water can kill plants and corrode materials, so I imagine they steered clear of it.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

There's some reference in Appicius Cookbook and Catos De Agricultura that some meals would be cooked with ocean water indeed, although it is also stated that pure salt was added nonetheless.
As these books were intended rather for the wealthy, I think use of ocean water for cooking was more widespread with the poor.

As to Carthago sowing with salt. I'd say the Romans weren't that foolish to destroy the fields for once and cutting their flesh a second time by wasting incedible amounts of salt. Africas/Carthagos fields were the granary for more than Carthago and the fields would be needed.

[Lucius Aurelius Lurco]

The way I understand the destruction of Carthage, the whole idea was that the city essentially ceased to exist except as some pretty well destroyed ruins. I remember all the inhabitants who were not slaughtered were remanded into slavery, so not only did the city cease to exist, but the population ceased to exist as well.
Salting the fields would be overkill, what with everyone in the neighborhood either dead or in chains on the way to the slave markets and no city left.

[M. Demetrius]

Well, just like in the sacking of other cities, a few would have found a way to escape, but the city would not be a city any more, even after the main military force left. Tough times for the vanquished, as always.

[Spartan JKM]

Hey everyone. I have no time! Just wanted to say hi. How's it going? Take care

Seriously, I need your help guys, so I can help you! I'm on the road with no precious source-material I always draw on to elaborate amid such intense and elucidating discussions. All I have is my brain per se! Moreover, this laptop I'm on is from the late 1990s, hence it may malfunction as I display my usual prolixity, viz, I can't even surf the internet! I'll write this on a word document just in case. Forgive any incoherent rambling upcoming.

I've got a valuable source - obscure, but the words are substantial. It doesn't refute anything indubitably, because the salt still doesn't come up. But - it might be inferred (I wouldn't press it, though), and the tradition ascribed to Barthold Niebuhr, that of the plow, is validated. First of all, that 1986 article by Ridley, despite its terrific display of erudition, is flawed with its 'charge' against Bertrand Hallward - in fact, way off temporally - as is the 'come to think of it' attitude that there was no plow at Carthage, either. However, the likes of Warmington and Scullard 'admitted' they sourced Hallward. The salt is mentioned by Will Durant, too (The Story of Civilization, Book 3, but I believe that was after Hallward, perhaps in the 1940s). In the early 20th century, one Freudian-type thinker wrote something along the lines of, 'sowing salt into the ruins was a custom to add strength to a curse', but I don't know if he mentioned Carthage (Ernest Jones was his name. Not positive there. Maybe Ernst, as this was the era of the German school of higher studies); sorry, I could get detail if under better circumstances! Jones' source was one Schleiden (i before e?), and it was a work on salt, published in the 1870s. I found these on google books. I guess I'm excited about sharing this before somebody else does. If I could find it...

My grandparents had many old 'cyclopaedias' and reference books (they're no longer with us; thank you in advance. My mom has them now, and if I even think about scanning them...) which enthralled my interest when I was a kid. It was fascinating to just look at them on the massive shelf. One compendium set I could not handle without permission was the The New American Cyclopaedia series they owned; these were published in 1860-something (!!). At s.v. Carthage, this edition from the 1860s definitely reads that the Romans 'razed Carthage to the ground, plowed over its site, and sewed salt into the furrows' (not verbatim, but I saw it recently online - I think google books or archives.org (you know those valuable sites!). It's definitely The New American Cyclopaedia (Appleton & Co,), but you might have to peruse to find the exact one. I can copy it over next week if nobody finds it. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which my aunt got, was even older than The New American Cyclopaedia (1820-40s, even? I remember saying, 'boy this is older than the Civil War!'), mentions that Carthage was razed and plowed over.

Even the sagely Serge Lancel stated that it was through Hallward's pen that the salt scattered on the soil of former Carthage 'first saw light' (Carthage: A History, last chapters), but the renowned archaeologist acknowledges the mythical status. The salt issue is likely a myth, one 'percolated' down the ages, indeed, probably affected the biblical tradition of the Assyrian act in Judges; it seems to be what makes mythical folklore. Attila allegedly did so to Padua before the Battle of Chalons, as did Frederick Barbarossa to Milan in the later 1100s (both, AFAIK, have been discarded). But regardless of all the 'evidence' we have through Cicero, Sallust, Appian, Plutarch, Strabo, Pliny, Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Eutropius, Cassius Dio, Orosius, (any more?), and a famous devotio carried out under Lucius Furius (the prominent member in the 'Scipionic Circle' in the early 130s B.C., and also surely the 'Furius' in Macrobius' report of many centuries later in his Saturnalia; Ridley mentioned this) relayed by Macrobius, it strains credibility that it would never come up among all of them, especially in light of the carnage that is mentioned. But Appian seemingly accounted for discrepant stories, one that the ground at Carthage was admonished by the 'commission of ten' not as cursed (Punic Wars, ch. 135-?), but later, amid the context of Gaius Gracchus' African colony in c. 122 B.C., he ascribes words to Scipio (what Scipio said back in 146 B.C., I believe?), in The Civil Wars (first book?) that the land was for 'cursed for sheep-herding', or something like that. Now, unless a serious enterprise to undertake farming (they did now have Mago's famous treatise!) was in the works, this can only be metaphorical in decreeing that the ground is off limits for cultivation of any kind. Macrobius mentioned the 'sacrifice of rams' by Furius (130s B.C.). I know that, if not regulated, sheep are the worse animals for maintaining the grass, no? But, admittedly, I know no more than such hearsay, hence that could be a myth! For what it's worth, Plutarch mentioned the religious 'taboos' at the same backdrop which fostered over former Carthage's site, in his Life of Gaius Gracchus. Adding to that, I believe the account by Cassius Dio or Zonares (same difference) of the destruction of Carthage has Cato there asserting things over the laying waste to the city, and that it would be accursed for anyone to set foot here again, contra Appian. But was Cato still alive in 146 B.C.? Regardless, the anathema for Carthage by Rome was overt, to say the least. Well, if you even believe Arnold Toynbee by only a good margin, Hannibal did win posthumously and indirectly, as the wedge he tried to drive into the Republic's integrity had a momentous ripple effect which he largely exacerbated, perhaps even started. The Republic fell before the changing demands and burdens... I think I'd better leave that one alone, at least here and now!

OK. If somebody said this earlier, I apologize. I have soured little on the thread, but will when I get back home. You all notice the obvious omissions of the ancient evidence for this subject: it may not be strong enough to 'lift the salt demystifying', but Polybius, Diodorus, and Livy are all either fragmented or 'epitomized' with their recordings of Carthage's destruction. But Appian does appear at his best (comparatively).

Now, here it is, and I don't mean to get ahead of myself. I don't possess 'esoteric knowledge'. But amid a few debates covering this (always superior here on RAT), this one aspect is missing, and I feel it should be known, at least for the sake of trivia! Online is available the famous Corpus Juris.. (Civili?) of Justinian (you know, the codified set of laws laid out by Justinian, one of the most influential elements to European history?). It has a blueish background - very attractively laid out, the one I found. Go to the 'Digest' (Digesta?) to no 21. It is from the 3rd century jurist Modentinus Herenus (that's probably not quite teh correct spelling, but I know someone like Vortigern or D B Campbell, etc., etc, will know of this figure); he worked under Severus before Theodosius II's famous codex, and tutored the young Maximilian II. His words here pertain to the destruction of Carthage, and they are in Latin (again, not a hurdle for you guys!). Specifically, it seems he was issuing a warning from the past, evoking Carthage's misery. fructum (growing crops) was mentioned, morte (death, annihilation) was in there; more than once, if I recall, desinet (?) was voiced - to 'desist', or 'cease to exist'; and the term for plow (aratum?) was the biggie in there amid these words of the famous jurist (I have the name close enough: somebody will know . I can't recall more than that, but I translated it with professionals not online services good for words.

Good luck. I'll get back here within about ten days. Oh yes, the most effective source which led me to all this was an article largely in response to Ridley, specifically refuting him about the plow and Hallward. I believe it has the mentions of 18th and 19th century snippets about the salt, etc. God, what was it named? How about this? go to JSTOR and 'search' for "Ridley Destruction of Carthage Salt Macrobius" (I think this is where I found the bit on 'Modentinus'). It's a fascinating article, starting off with 'Ridley recently wrote about the destruction of Carthage', and a good complimentary balance to the one by Ridley.

Probably no salt, but almost definitely a plow, and not exclusive to the the fossa regia.

Actually, this wasn't worth the trouble; never mind everyhting I just wrote! I'll do it all in quasi-scholarly fashion with all my books and papers, you know, passing off opinions like those of Goldsworthy and Lancel as if they were my own... :lol: :lol:

James K MacKinnon

[D B Campbell]

First of all, that 1986 article by Ridley, despite its terrific display of erudition, is flawed with its 'charge' against Bertrand Hallward - in fact, way off temporally - as is the 'come to think of it' attitude that there was no plow at Carthage, either. However, the likes of Warmington and Scullard 'admitted' they sourced Hallward.

To be fair to Ridley, nobody had realised there was a problem with Hallward's article until he wrote about it. We are all riding on his coat-tails.

My grandparents had many old 'cyclopaedias' ... the The New American Cyclopaedia series ... were published in 1860-something (!!). At s.v. Carthage, this edition from the 1860s definitely reads that the Romans 'razed Carthage to the ground, plowed over its site, and sewed salt into the furrows' (not verbatim, but I saw it recently online - I think google books or archives.org (you know those valuable sites!).

Now this is definitely interesting. If only Ridley had had the internet, he would have realised (as you have) that Hallward was simply drawing upon The American Cyclopedia (or some intermediary).

There is a passage in Volume 4 of The American Cyclopedia (Appleton, 1883) that reads: "Scipio, the son of Paulus Aemilius (sic), ... took the city by storm, and destroyed it, razing it to the ground, passing the ploughshare over its site, and sowing salt in the furrows, the emblem of barrenness and annihilation". (Google Books won't let me see the whole page, but it's apparently p. 39). (The author of the article seems to envisage this happening before the street fighting began.)

Go to the 'Digest' (Digesta?) to no 21. It is from the 3rd century jurist Modentinus Herenus (that's probably not quite teh correct spelling, but I know someone like Vortigern or D B Campbell, etc., etc, will know of this figure); he worked under Severus before Theodosius II's famous codex, and tutored the young Maximilian II. His words here pertain to the destruction of Carthage, and they are in Latin (again, not a hurdle for you guys!). Specifically, it seems he was issuing a warning from the past, evoking Carthage's misery. fructum (growing crops) was mentioned, morte (death, annihilation) was in there; more than once, if I recall, desinet (?) was voiced - to 'desist', or 'cease to exist'; and the term for plow (aratum?) was the biggie in there amid these words of the famous jurist.

Yes, this is the contribution by Susan Stevens (Classical Philology 83.1, 1988, pp. 39-41), in response to Ridley. Her point is that, even though the salt story was a modern fabrication, there was an ancient tradition -- not a contemporary tradition, but certainly by the 3rd C AD -- of ploughing having occurred at Carthage. And it was she who suggested that Hallward was not the ultimate source of the salting, but that "we should look to nonspecialist works of the mid- to late nineteenth century" (p. 41).

Perhaps her grandparents also had The American Cyclopedia? (btw Thanks for your interesting contribution.)

[Vindex]

Although I accept that the myth is modern...

...there is this to the south west of ancient Carthage! :wink: So there could have been a bit of evaporation harvesting going on!

Just a bit of devil's advocate! :twisted:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... _lake1.JPG

[D B Campbell]

So there could have been a bit of evaporation harvesting going on!

I believe Ridley makes the amusing point that, had Scipio wished to sow salt, there would have been plenty to hand!

[Crispvs]

Two points:

1 - I myself have tried killing weeds with salt. A couple of years ago I sprinkled a thick line of salt along each gap between the paving slabs behind our house. At the time there were many weeds growing up between them. The immediate effect was the emergence onto the paving stones of several dozen earthworms who were clearly emerging to get away from the salt. Slightly less dramatically, over the next two weeks the weeds gradually turned yellow and died. However, after about eight weeks new weeds started coming up between the slabs, indicating that the salt was no longer at a level of concentration sufficient to poison plants. I have repeated the exercise twice since and the result has been the same each time. This suggests to me that even if salting had occurred it would have to have been a ritual act and nothing more, as the effect would not have lasted.

2 - It has also occurred to me that if the Romans, having demolished the city, deliberately ploughed rubble into the ground, this would have made much of the ground unsuitable for growing much other than grass for grazing animals. So the ploughing itself might have been enough to render the lan unsuitable for the production of crops.

Crispvs

[M. Demetrius]

There is a passage in the Bible in which the conquering army threw stones into each field "until it was ruined". Of course, the rocks could eventually be removed, and the fields replanted, but the agriculture in that area would suffer for a few seasons. Can't plow rocks very well.