342 HANNO. IJIUS, son of the elder, brother of the younger Delmatius [Delmatius], grandson of Constantius Chlorus, and nephew of the foregoing, received in marriage Constantina, daughter of his uncle Con- stantine the Great, by whom he was nominated to the government of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Lesser Armenia, with the title of king, a designation which had never been assumed by any Roman ruler since the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, and which would have been regarded with horror and disgust even in the days of Nero or Commodus. However startling the appellation may appear, nothing can be more unreasonable than the scep- ticism of Gibbon, for the fact is not only recorded by Ammianus and other historians of the period, but their testimony is fully corroborated by coins unquestionably genuine, which bear the legend fl. (or FL. CL.) HANNIBALLIANO. REGI. This prinCC shared the fate of his kindred, and perished in the general massacre of the imperial family which followed the death of Constantine. (Amm, Marc. xiv. 1, and note of Valesius ; Aur. Vict. Epit. 61 ; Chron. Paschal. 286 ; Spanheim, de Usu et Fraest. Numismat. Diss. xii. ; Eckhel, vol. viii. p. 104.) [W. R.] COIN OP HANNIBALLIANUS. HANNO (^hvvav). This name seems to have been still more common at Carthage than those of Hamilcar and Hannibal ; hence it is even more difficult to distinguish or identify, with any reason- able probability, the numerous persons that bore it. In the enumeration of them here given, it has been judged the safest plan to consider all those as dis- tinct whom there are no sufficient grounds for iden- tifying ; though it is probable that several of them might prove to be the same person, if our inform- ation were more complete. But as we repeatedly meet with two or more Hannos in the same army, or engaged in the same enterprise, it is evident that no presumption arises of identity from the mere circumstance of their being contemporaries. 1 . Father of the Hamilcar who was killed at Hi- mera, B. c. 480, according to Herodotus (vii. 165). See Hamilcar, No. 1. 2. Son of the same Hamilcar, according to Justin (xix. 2). It is probable that this is the same with the father of Himilco, who took Agrigentum, B. c. 406 (Diod. xiii. 80) ; it being expressly stated by Diodorus that that general and Hannibal, the son of Gisco, who was also grandson of Hamilcar, No. 1, were of the same family. Heeren {Ideen, vol. iv. p. 539) conjectures this Hanno to be the same with the navigator and author of the Periplus. 3. According to Justin (xx. 5), the commander of the Carthaginians in Sicily in one of their wars with Dionysius in the latter part of his reign (pro- bably the last of all, concerning which we have little information in Diodorus), was named Hanno. He is apparently the same to whom the epithet Magnus is applied in the epitome of Trogus Pom- peius (Prol. xx.) ; and it is probable that the twentieth book of that author contained a relation of the exploits in Africa by which he earned this title. These are omitted by Justin, who, however, HANNO. speaks of Hanno in the following book (xxi. 4) as " princeps Carthaginiensium," and as possessed of private wealth and resources exceeding those of the state itself. This great power led him, accord- ing to the same author, to aim at possessing him- self of the absolute sovereignty. After a fruitless attempt to poison the senators at a marriage-feast, he excited a rebellion among the slaves, but his schemes were again frustrated, and he fled for refuge to a fortress in the interior, where he as- sembled an army of 20,000 men, and invoked the assistance of the Africans and Moors. But he soon fell into the hands of the Carthaginians, who crucified him,, together with his sons and all his kindred. (Justin, xxi. 4, xxii. 7.) The date of this event, which is related only by Justin and Oro- sius (iv. 6, who copies Justin almost verbatim), and incidentally alluded to by Aristotle (Pol. v. 7), must apparently be placed between the first expul- sion and the return of the younger Dionysius, i. e. between 356 and 346 b. c. There is a Hanno men- tioned by Polyaenus (v. 9) as commanding a Car- thaginian fleet on the coast of Sicily against Diony- sius, who may be the same with the above. Botticher also conjectures ((?escA. der Carthager^ p. 178) that the Hanno mentioned by Diodorus (xvi. 81) as the father of Gisco [Gisco, No. 2] is no other than this one ; but there is no proof of this supposition. 4. Commander of the Carthaginian fleet and army sent to Sicily in b. c. 344, according to Dio- dorus (xvi. 67). In all the subsequent operations of that expedition, Plutarch speaks of Mago as the Carthaginian commander (Timol. 17 — 20) ; but in one place {lb. 19), he mentions Hanno as lying in wait with a squadron to intercept the Corinthian ships. Whether the same person is meant in both these cases, or that Hanno in Diodorus is merely a mistake for Mago, it seems impossible to decide. 5. One of the generals appointed to take the field against Agathocles when the latter had effected his landing in Africa, b. c. 310. He is said to have had an hereditary feud with Bomilcar, his colleague in the command, which did not, however, prevent their co-operation. In the battle that en- sued Hanno commanded the right wing, and placed himself at the head of the sacred battalion, a select body of heavy infantry, apparently native Cartha- ginians, with which he attacked the enemy's left wing vigorously, and for a time successfully, but at length fell covered with wounds, on which his troops gave way. (Diod. xx. 10 — 12 ; Justin, xxii. 6 ; comp. Ores. iv. 6.) 6. One of the three generals appointed to act against Archagathus, the son of Agathocles, in Africa. He totally defeated the Syracusan general, Aeschrion, who was opposed to him. (Diod. xx. 59, 60.) 7. Commander of the Carthaginian garrison at Messana, at the beginning of the first Punic war, B. c. 264. It appears that while one party of the Mamertines had sent to request assistance from Rome, the adverse faction had had recourse to Car- thage, and had actually put Hanno with a body of Carthaginian troops in possession of the citadel. Hence, when the Roman officer, C. Claudius, came to announce to the Mamertines that the Romans were sending a force to their support, and called on' them to eject the Carthaginians, no answer was re- turned. On this, Claudius retired to Rhegium, where he collected a few ships, with which he at-
