Military comparison between Hannibal and Scipio began early, with their conversation at Ephesus, 193. First rule of generalship was: stay alive as ‘battle manager’; this had to be balanced by felt need for heroic leadership. Both learned warlike skills from relatives (Scipio grew up with three consular uncles and a consular father), but the biggest lesson was to avoid these men’s premature battle deaths. Army reforms are reviewed; Scipio’s are better attested. In logistics, both faced similar problems, but Hannibal’s isolation meant his challenges were greater. For weaponry, Hannibal had to improvise and recycle. Hannibal’s tactics were superior to Roman at the outset, but Scipio learned from his enemy. Both practised ‘Punic’ deception. Neither shone at siege or naval warfare. Hannibal’s struggle for Italian hearts and minds conflicted with his need to extract supplies. On man management, Scipio’s handling of Pleminius was a blemish. Unlike Scipio, Hannibal never faced a mutiny.

Military comparison between Hannibal and Scipio began early, with their conversation at Ephesus, 193. First rule of generalship was: stay alive as ‘battle manager’; this had to be balanced by felt need for heroic leadership. Both learned warlike skills from relatives (Scipio grew up with three consular uncles and a consular father), but the biggest lesson was to avoid these men’s premature battle deaths. Army reforms are reviewed; Scipio’s are better attested. In logistics, both faced similar problems, but Hannibal’s isolation meant his challenges were greater. For weaponry, Hannibal had to improvise and recycle. Hannibal’s tactics were superior to Roman at the outset, but Scipio learned from his enemy. Both practised ‘Punic’ deception. Neither shone at siege or naval warfare. Hannibal’s struggle for Italian hearts and minds conflicted with his need to extract supplies. On man management, Scipio’s handling of Pleminius was a blemish. Unlike Scipio, Hannibal never faced a mutiny.

The record for the consular fasti of the Mid-Republic, as one of our more reliable sources for the period, offers valuable insight into who was in power at a crucial time for the transition of Rome from city-state to territorial empire. It has been recognized at least since Münzer that many family names in the lists were not originally from Rome, but instead from other Italian communities. The chapter attempts to take systematic stock of this important phenomenon by means of an analysis of the origins of all the known consular families of the time in order to track the emergence, persistence, and long-term trajectory of each family. The ability of elite families to join the highest echelons of Roman politics from various parts of Italy can be seen as a key process that characterizes the early phases of Roman expansion. The quantity of new consular families arguably represents a measure of power-sharing arrangements that were put in place vis-à-vis other Italians, potentially illuminating diplomatic interactions that have often been underestimated. In short, an important flipside of this great historical transition can be revealed, emphasizing the role played by Italian elites in the Mid-Republican conquest.