There will be a time to show the mentioned excerpt. This post will rather introduce a Plutarch excerpt where one Nypsios, neapolitan, an expert man-at-arms, appers. You might believe that the latter character has nothing to do with the former, apart from an apparent similarity in their names and the fact of being both from Neapolis.
As enticing as it may seem, I myself wouldn't have gone further than noticing the similarity, but in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 6, ed. D.M. Lewis, John Boardman, Simon Hornblower, M. Ostwald, you find that
[…] perhaps the Oscans at Neapolis were not so very different in 327/6, when we hear of a Neapolitan leader with the probably Oscan name of Nymphius (cf. Nypsius the Neapolitan general of Dionysius II: Diod xvi.18.1).Again, you find in Ancient Italy; historical and geographical investigations in Central Italy, Magna Graecia, Sicily, and Sardinia, by E. Pais, that:
[…] It has been argued that Nymphius, father of Paquius, and one the two Neapolitan generals in the iscription, may be identified with the famous Neapolitan Nypsius, a general of Dionysius II (vd. Diod. XVI 18-20). It looks impossible to prove anything about this, as the name “Nypsius”, that looks like the same as of the Nymphios who was praetor in 326, appears in other inscriptions from Neapolis (e.g., Kaibel, No. 726) and also from Capua (CIL, X, 4251). This name might have been rather common in Neapolis and in Campania.But M. Sardi, in his Cospirazioni E Congiure Nel Mondo Antico, goes the farthest:
[…]
[…] Ninfio looks like the ellenization of the oscan name Nypsio. […] One might question if he was the very same Nypsio from Naples that in 356 BC intervened in favour of Dyonisius II against Dion, in Syracuse (Diod. XVI 18,1). […]We finally come to A. La Regina, whose opinion in “Sanniti e Greci nel IV sec. a.C. - La leggenda delle origini spartane”, the question looks clear:
[…]There are more examples. The root of the question is that more than one historian was triggered by the names resemblance and by the fact to have reached a relevant position in Neapolis to wonder if Nypsios and Nymphios were the same person. This was frankly too much for me to think the opposite.
At the same time as Gaius Pontius was in Tarentum among Archytas acquaintances, another character of Samnitic origin affirmed in Naples, that we know via Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch by the name of Nypsios. He was a commander famous for valour and strategic skillfulness who in 356 a.C. led, in Siracusa, the war against Dion under Dyonisius, leading a host of mercenaries. […] Moreover it is higly probable, though not sure, that one of the neapolitan magistrates who gave Naples to the Romans in 326 to expel the six thousand Samnite and Nolan soldiers […] had the Oscan name of Nympsius, instead of the Greek one of Nymphius, as reported by Livy. On the contrary, nothing prevents thinking that the latter was the same commander who operated in Syracuse thirty years before. In both situations, indeed, the character is able to favourably solve, with wit, desperate military situations.[…]
So, who was this Nypsios mentioned by Diodorus Siculus? What his story? In this post I will report the Plutarch's version, from his Dion, 41, 44, 46 and 50. It is a cruel story, sometimes gruesome, and linked with one of the most powerful towns at that time: that Syracuse that had stopped the Athenian expansion.
After this, there put in at the city triremes from Dionysius, under the command of Nypsius the Neapolitan, who brought food and money for the beleaguered garrison of the acropolis. In a naval battle that ensued the Syracusans were indeed victorious, and captured four of the tyrant's ships, but they were made wanton by their victory, and in their utter lack of discipline turned their rejoicing into drinking-bouts and mad carousals, and were so neglectful of their real interests that, when they thought themselves already in possession of the acropolis, they actually lost both it and their city besides.
For Nypsius, seeing no saving remnant in the city, but the multitude given over to music and revelry from dawn till midnight, and their generals delighted with this festivity and reluctant to use compulsion with men in their cups, made the best use of his opportunity and attacked their siege-works, and having mastered these and broken them down, he let his Barbarians loose upon the city, bidding them treat those whom they encountered as they could and would.
Quickly, then, were the Syracusans aware of the mischief, but slowly and with difficulty did they rally to oppose it, so utterly distracted were they. For it was a sack of the city that was now going on, its men being slain, its walls torn down, and its women and children dragged shrieking to the acropolis, while its generals gave up all for lost and were unable to employ the citizens against the enemy, who were everywhere inextricably mingled with them.
[…]
But the soldiers of Dionysius at Syracuse, as long as it was day, did much mischief to the city; when night came, however, they retired to the acropolis, having lost some few of their number. Upon this, the popular leaders of the Syracusans plucked up courage, and in the hope that the enemy would rest content with what they had done, exhorted the citizens once more to ignore Dion, and if he should come up with his mercenaries, not to admit them, nor yield precedence to them as superior in point of bravery, but to save their city and their liberty by their own efforts.
Accordingly, fresh messengers were sent to Dion, some from the generals forbidding his advance, but others from the horsemen and more reputable citizens urging him to hasten it. For this reason he came marching on now slowly, and now at top speed. As the night advanced the enemies of Dion took possession of the gates in order to shut him out, but Nypsius, sending his mercenaries once more from the citadel in greater numbers and with more impetuosity than before, tore down at once the entire siege-wall, and overran and sacked the city.
And now there was a slaughter not only of men, but also of women and children; there was little haling away of prisoners, but a great destruction of all alike. For since Dionysius now despaired of his cause and fiercely hated the Syracusans, he wished to make their city as it were a tomb for his falling tyranny. So his soldiers, forestalling the succour which Dion was bringing, resorted to the speediest destruction and annihilation of everything by burning, setting fire to what was near them with the brands and torches in their hands, and scattering fiery arrows from their bows among the remoter parts.
As the Syracusans fled, some were overtaken and slain in the streets, and those who sought cover in their houses were driven out again by the fire, many buildings being now a-blaze and falling upon those who were running about.
[…] It was true, indeed, that the enemy (Nypsius' men) presented a formidable appearance, for they had become altogether savage, and had drawn themselves up along the demolished siege-wall, which made the approach to them difficult and hard to force; but the peril from the fire disturbed the mercenaries of Dion more, and made their progress arduous.
For they were surrounded on all sides by glowing flames which were spreading among the houses; they trod upon blazing ruins and ran at the risk of their lives under falling fragments of great size; they made their way through clouds of dust and smoke; and yet they tried to keep together and not break their ranks. Moreover, when they joined battle with the enemy, only a few on each side could fight at close quarters, so narrow and uneven was the place; but the Syracusans encouraged them with eager shouts, and Nypsius and his men were overpowered.
Most of them fled back into the acropolis, which was near, and so saved themselves; but those who were left outside and scattered hither and thither, were pursued and slain by the mercenaries. No immediate enjoyment of their victory, however, and none of the glad congratulations befitting so great an achievement were possible for the Syracusans in that emergency; they turned their attention to their burning houses, and only by toiling all night did they succeed in putting out the fire.
[…]
After this the Syracusans discharged their fleet, since it was of no use, while it involved great outlays for the crews, and caused dissension among their commanders; they also laid siege to the citadel after they had finished building the wall that enclosed it. No one came to the help of the besieged, provisions failed them, and the mercenaries became mutinous, so that the son of Dionysius gave up his cause for lost and made terms with Dion. The citadel he handed over to him together with the arms and other equipment there, while he himself, taking his mother and sisters and manning five triremes, sailed away to his father. [2] Dion allowed him to depart in safety, and no one who was then in Syracuse missed that sight, nay, they called upon the absent ones also, pitying them because they could not behold this day and the rising of the sun upon a free Syracuse. [3] For since, among the illustrations men give of the mutations of fortune, the expulsion of Dionysius is still to this day the strongest and plainest, what joy must we suppose those men themselves then felt, and how great a pride, who, with the fewest resources, over-threw the greatest tyranny that ever was!
No comments:
Post a Comment