Andrea Pierozzi

A fragment of the work On Heracles by Herodorus of Herakleia (FGrHist
31 F 2a) transmitted by Constantine Porphyrogenitus lists the peoples settled on the
coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The description stretches from the south-western
Atlantic regions to a boundary that is not clear due to a corruption of the text, but
which is very likely to be the Rhone: thus, while contemporary authors (Vth/IVth
centuries BC) consider Iberia to coincide with the Mediterranean side of the Peninsula,
Herodorus considers it to include the Atlantic shores. He locates the Gletes,
one of these peoples, “towards Boreas” from the Cynetians, who dwell the western
end of the region, which is to be identified with the Sacred Promontory – Cape St.
Vincent; therefore, these Gletes seem to have been located by Herodorus on the
western coast of the Peninsula. The fragment can be compared with some passages
of Herodotus’ Histories concerning the Atlantic regions; in particular, the Gletes
mentioned by Herodorus seem to match with the Keltoi placed by Herodotus in the
region from which the Istrus is believed to flow, in the far west, beyond the Pillars
of Hercules and near the Cynetians (2,33; 4,49). While Herodotus, Ephorus and
Aristotle show a curtailed knowledge of the regions beyond the Strait of Gibraltar,
Herodorus’ representation seems to be outlining rather clearly the shape of the
south-western Atlantic coast, inhabited by the Cynetians and the Gletes/Celts, together
with the south-to-north navigation route beyond the Sacred Promontory; one
could believe this to be due to a peculiar knowledge of the region or to an insertion
of the intermediate author or the copyists.

Full version can be downloaded here https://www.cairn.info/revue-dialogues-d-histoire-ancienne-2023-1-page-9.htm

Dans Dialogues d'histoire ancienne Dialogues d'histoire ancienne 2023/1 (49/1) 2023/1 (49/1), pages 9 à 43 Éditions Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté

Two extended accounts survive on the Gallic cross of the Hellespont into
Asia Minor in 278/277 BC, from Memnon of Heraclea and Livy respectively. While being similar, these two versions seem to come from different ancient sources. Memnon’s account is based on Nymphis ; Livy’s seems to be based on a lost passage from Polybius. The episode is also mentioned by Justin, who is likely to have used Hieronymus of Cardia, and by Strabo, who cites Posidonius and Timagenes. The paper attempts to show that Polybius wrote an account now lost on the episode and was following a source from Byzantium, perhaps the historian Demetrius. The analysis of the sources allows for more precise reconstructions of the political dynamics of the episode, in which the Gauls seem to have been exploited by Nicomedes of Bithynia in the context of a wider chessboard including Antigonus Gonatas, Antiochus I and other powers.

The exact chronology of Dionysius I’s campaigns in the ’80s of the IVth
century B.C. is still in question. The sources relate Dionysius’ capture of Rhegion (Diodorus, Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus) and the treaty with the Gauls (Justin) to the sack of Rome by the Senones: to make all these accounts converge, we should date the fall of the Urbs in late July 387 B.C. The coincidence of the Gallic invasion and the siege of Rhegion suggests us that there may have been a remote planning of the Syracusan approach with the Celts; according to the deeds of Dionysius I’s in the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian seas and the chronology of Philistus’ mythological narrative, Syracuse’s interest with the Gauls may have been developed in the ’90s. Such a scenario would allow us to suppose that the Syracusan court played a role in the Celtic migratory phaenomenon before the sack of Rome with an anti-Etrurian and anti-Roman aim. By
the end of the ’80s, the absence of Philistus from the court may have induced Dionysius I to use the Gauls as mercenaries rather than allies.