Hubbry Logo
Battle of PanormusBattle of PanormusMain
Open search
Battle of Panormus
Community hub
Battle of Panormus
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Battle of Panormus
Battle of Panormus
Battle of Panormus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Battle of Panormus
Part of the First Punic War
Date250 BC
Location
Panormus (present-day Palermo)
38°07′N 13°22′E / 38.117°N 13.367°E / 38.117; 13.367
Result Roman victory
Belligerents
Rome Carthage
Commanders and leaders
Lucius Caecilius Metellus Hasdrubal
Strength
2 legions and 2 Alae (16,000–20,000 men)
  • 30,000
  • 60–142 elephants
Casualties and losses
Unknown, but light
  • Heavy
  • All elephants captured
Panormus is located in Sicily
Panormus
Panormus
class=notpageimage|
Location of Panormus, on the north coast of Sicily

The Battle of Panormus was fought in Sicily in 250 BC during the First Punic War between a Roman army led by Lucius Caecilius Metellus and a Carthaginian force led by Hasdrubal, son of Hanno. The Roman force of two Roman and two allied legions defending the city of Panormus defeated the much larger Carthaginian army of 30,000 men and between 60 and 142 war elephants.

The war had commenced in 264 BC with Carthage in control of much of Sicily, where most of the fighting took place. In 256–255 BC the Romans attempted to strike at the city of Carthage in North Africa, but suffered a heavy defeat by a Carthaginian army strong in cavalry and elephants. When the focus of the war returned to Sicily, the Romans captured the large and important city of Panormus in 254 BC. Thereafter they avoided battle for fear of the war elephants which the Carthaginians had shipped to Sicily. In late summer 250 BC Hasdrubal led out his army to devastate the crops of the cities of Rome's allies. The Romans withdrew to Panormus and Hasdrubal pressed on to the city walls.

Once he arrived in Panormus, Metellus turned to fight, countering the elephants with a hail of javelins from earthworks dug near the walls. Under this missile fire the elephants panicked and fled through the Carthaginian infantry. The Roman heavy infantry then charged the Carthaginian left flank, which broke, along with the rest of the Carthaginians. The elephants were captured and later slaughtered in the Circus Maximus. This was the last significant land battle of the war, which ended nine years later in a Roman victory.

Primary sources

[edit]
A monochrome relief stele depicting a man in classical Greek clothing raising one arm
Polybius – "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian"[1]

The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War[note 1] is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage.[3][4] His works include a lost manual on military tactics,[5] but he is best known for his Histories, written after 146 BC, or about a century after the end of the war.[3][6] Polybius's work is considered broadly objective and neutral between the Carthaginian and Roman points of view.[7][8]


Carthaginian written records were destroyed with their capital, Carthage, in 146 BC and Polybius's account of the First Punic War is based on several lost Greek and Latin sources.[9] Polybius was an analytical historian and when possible interviewed participants in the events he wrote about.[10][11] Only part of the first book of the 40 comprising Histories deals with the First Punic War.[12] The accuracy of Polybius's account has been much debated over the past 150 years, but the modern consensus is to accept it largely at face value, and the details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account.[12][13][14] The modern historian Andrew Curry considers Polybius "fairly reliable";[15] while Dexter Hoyos describes him as "a remarkably well-informed, industrious, and insightful historian".[16] Other, later, ancient histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form.[4][17] Modern historians usually take into account the later histories of Diodorus Siculus and Dio Cassius, although the classicist Adrian Goldsworthy states "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts".[11][note 2] Other sources include inscriptions, coins and archaeological evidence.[19]

Armies

[edit]
Main articles: Roman army of the mid-Republic and Military of Carthage
A monochrome relief stele depicting two figures dressed as Roman legionaries
Detail from the Ahenobarbus relief showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC

Most male Roman citizens were liable for military service, and would serve as infantry, with a better-off minority providing a cavalry component. Traditionally, when at war the Romans would raise two legions of Roman troops and two alae of allies, each of 4,200 infantry[note 3] and 300 cavalry (900 cavalry for the ala). A small number of the infantry served as javelin-armed skirmishers. The others were equipped as heavy infantry, with body armour, a large shield, and short thrusting swords. They were divided into three ranks, of which the front rank also carried two javelins, while the second and third ranks had a thrusting spear instead. Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries fought in relatively open order. It was the long-standing Roman procedure to elect two consuls each year to each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining a Roman legion with a similarly sized and equipped legion provided by their Latin allies.[21]

Carthaginian citizens only served in their army if there was a direct threat to the city of Carthage. In most circumstances Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army. Many were from North Africa which provided several types of fighters including: close-order infantry equipped with large shields, helmets, short swords and long thrusting spears; javelin-armed light infantry skirmishers; close-order shock cavalry carrying spears; and light cavalry skirmishers who threw javelins from a distance and avoided close combat.[22][23] Both Iberia and Gaul provided small numbers of experienced infantry; unarmoured troops who would charge ferociously, but had a reputation for breaking off if a combat was protracted.[22][24][note 4] The close-order African infantry would fight in a tightly packed formation known as a phalanx.[23] Slingers were frequently recruited from the Balearic Islands.[22][25] Roman and Greek sources refer to these foreign fighters derogatively as "mercenaries", but the modern historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes to this as "a gross oversimplification".[26] They served under a variety of arrangements; for example, some were the regular troops of allied cities or kingdoms seconded to Carthage as part of formal treaties.[26] The Carthaginians also employed war elephants; North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[24][27][note 5]

Background

[edit]

Start of the war

[edit]
A map of the western Mediterranean showing the territory controlled by Carthage and Rome at the start of the First Punic War.
Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage at the start of the First Punic War

The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War.[29] It had conquered peninsular Italy south of the River Arno by 272 BC.[30] By this time Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Spain, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and the western half of Sicily in a military and commercial empire.[31] In the 3rd century BC Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean.[32] In 264 BC the two cities went to war over the city of Messana (modern Messina) in the north-eastern tip of Sicily.[33]

Much of the war was fought on, or in the waters near, Sicily. Away from the coasts its hilly and rugged terrain made manoeuvring large forces difficult and favoured defensive over offensive operations. Land operations were largely confined to raids, sieges and interdiction. Garrison duty and land blockades were the most common operations for both armies; only two full-scale pitched battles were fought on Sicily during the 23-year-long war; Panormus was one of these.[34][note 6] After several Roman successes[36] the war on Sicily reached a stalemate, as the Carthaginians focused on defending well-fortified towns and cities; these were mostly on the coast and could be supplied and reinforced without the Romans being able to use their superior army to interfere.[37][38]

Invasion of Africa

[edit]

From 260 BC the focus of the war shifted to the sea.[39][40] The Romans won naval victories at Mylae (260 BC) and Sulci (258 BC), and their frustration at the continuing stalemate in Sicily led them to develop a plan to invade the Carthaginian heartland in North Africa and threaten the city of Carthage (close to modern Tunis).[41] After defeating the Carthaginians at the Battle of Cape Ecnomus, possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved,[42][43][44] the Roman army landed in Africa on the Cape Bon Peninsula and began ravaging the Carthaginian countryside.[45]

Most of the Roman ships returned to Sicily, leaving 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to continue the war in Africa. A Carthaginian army which was strong in cavalry and elephants and approximately the same size as the Romans' was defeated after the Carthaginians positioned it on a rocky hill and the Roman infantry stormed it. The Carthaginian's losses are unknown, although their elephants and cavalry escaped with few casualties.[46] The Carthaginians gave charge of the training of their army to the Spartan mercenary commander Xanthippus.[47] In early 255 BC Xanthippus led an army of 12,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry and 100 elephants against 15,500 Romans, offered battle to them on an open plain, and decisively defeated them at the Battle of Tunis. The elephants played a prominent part in this victory. Approximately 2,000 Romans retreated to Aspis; 500 were captured; 13,000 were killed. The Romans evacuated the survivors by sea, but the Roman fleet was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy, with 384 ships sunk from their total of 464 and 100,000 men lost[48][49]—the majority non-Roman Latin allies.[50]

Prelude

[edit]
A relief map of Sicily showing the main cities at the time of the First Punic War
Sicily, the main theatre of the war

Having lost most of their fleet in the storm of 255 BC, the Romans rapidly rebuilt it, adding 220 new ships,[51][52] and launched a determined offensive in Sicily; their entire fleet, under both consuls, attacked Panormus early in 254 BC.[53] Panormus was a large, for the time, city on the north coast of Sicily, the site of the modern Sicilian capital Palermo.[note 7] It had a population of approximately 70,000 and was one of the largest Sicilian cities still loyal to Carthage and the most important economically.[55][56] The city's prosperity was based on trade and fishing, which resulted in an unusual lack of agriculture and the area immediately around the city was thickly forested, even close to the gates.[56] The city was surrounded and blockaded, and siege engines set up. These made a breach in the walls which the Romans stormed, capturing the outer town and giving no quarter. The inner town promptly surrendered. The 14,000 inhabitants who could afford it ransomed themselves and the remaining 13,000 were sold into slavery.[53]

Much of western inland Sicily then went over to the Romans: Ietas, Solous, Petra, and Tyndaris all came to terms.[53] In 252 BC the Romans captured Thermae and Lipara, which had been isolated by the fall of Panormus.[57] In late 253 BC or early 252 BC Carthaginian reinforcements were sent to Sicily under Hasdrubal, who had taken part in the two battles against the Romans in Africa.[53] The Romans avoided battle in 252 and 251 BC; according to Polybius because they feared the war elephants which the Carthaginians had shipped to Sicily.[58][59] The historian Nigel Bagnall suggests that survivors of the battle against Xanthippus passed on "horrific stories" of the effectiveness of the Carthaginian cavalry and elephants in open battle. In consequence the Carthaginians, probably with a smaller army than the Romans, dominated the plains; while the Romans stayed on higher and broken ground, where much of the effect of the cavalry and elephants would have been nullified. Both sides declined to fight on their opponents' favoured terrain.[60]

Battle

[edit]

In late summer 250 BC[61] Hasdrubal, hearing that one consul (Gaius Furius Pacilus) had left Sicily with half of the Roman army, marched out from the major Carthaginian stronghold of Lilybaeum towards Panormus with 30,000 men and between 60 and 142 elephants.[62] Halting some distance away, he devastated the harvest in the territories of Rome's newly allied cities, in an attempt to provoke the Roman commander, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, into battle.[57][59] The Roman troops amounted to two legions,[57] and they had been dispersed to gather the harvest. Metellus withdrew them in front of the advancing Carthaginians and they retreated into Panormus. This timidity was what Hasdrubal had come to expect, and he advanced down the Oreto valley, continuing to despoil the countryside. The Oreto reached the sea immediately south of Panormus, and once there Hasdrubal ordered part of his army to cross the river and advance up to the city wall.[63][64]

Once the elephants had crossed, or were crossing, the river, Metellus sent his light infantry to skirmish with the Carthaginians and impede their passage. These light troops hurled javelins at the Carthaginians, and had been instructed to concentrate on their elephants. Panormus was a major supply depot, and townspeople were employed in carrying bundles of javelins from stocks within the city to the foot of the walls so the Roman skirmishers were constantly resupplied.[63] The ground between the river and the city was covered with earthworks, some constructed during the Roman siege and some part of the city's defensive works, which provided cover for the Romans and made it difficult for the elephants to advance, or even manoeuvre. The elephants' mahouts, eager to demonstrate their charges' prowess, nevertheless drove them forward. Some accounts also have missiles being hurled down from the city walls at them. Peppered with missiles and unable to retaliate, the elephants panicked and fled through the Carthaginian infantry behind them.[64][65]

Denarius of C. Caecilius Metellus Caprarius (125 BC). The reverse alludes to the triumph of his ancestor Lucius Caecilius Metellus which featured the elephants he captured at Panormus.[66]

Metellus had concealed himself and a large part of his army either in the woods just outside the city gate,[64] or immediately inside the gates;[63] in either case this meant he was upstream from where the Carthaginian army was fording the river. From here Metellus fed fresh troops into the large-scale skirmish under the city walls. When the elephants broke, disorganising a large part of the Carthaginian army and demoralising all of it, Metellus ordered an attack on its left flank. The Carthaginians fled; those who attempted to fight were cut down. Metellus did not permit a pursuit, but did capture ten elephants in the immediate aftermath and, according to some accounts, the rest of the surviving animals over the succeeding days.[64]

Contemporary accounts do not report the other losses of either side, although the Carthaginians' are thought to have been heavy. Modern historians consider later claims of 20,000–30,000 Carthaginian casualties improbable.[67] Similarly, later accounts that the large Celtic contingent in the Carthaginian army were drunk when the battle began are usually dismissed; as is the suggestion that a Carthaginian fleet took part in the operation, causing heavy casualties when many fleeing soldiers ran into the sea hoping to be taken off by their ships.[68][69]

Aftermath

[edit]

The Carthaginian defeat, and especially the loss of their elephants, resulted in the Romans feeling freer to manoeuvre on the plains, and the Carthaginians no longer being willing to challenge them.[70] As was the Carthaginian custom after a defeat, Hasdrubal was recalled to Carthage to be executed.[71] After his success at Panormus, Metellus received a triumph in Rome on 7 September 250 BC, during which he paraded with the elephants he had captured at Panormus, who were then slaughtered in the Circus Maximus. The elephant was adopted as the emblem of the powerful Caecilii Metelli family, whose members featured an elephant on the coins they minted until the end of the Republic.[72][73]

Hasdrubal's successor, Adhubal, decided that the large fortified city of Selinus could no longer be garrisoned and had the town evacuated and destroyed.[64] Encouraged by their victory at Panormus, the Romans moved against the main Carthaginian base on Sicily, Lilybaeum. A large army commanded by the year's consuls Gaius Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus besieged the city. They had rebuilt their fleet, and blockaded the harbour with 200 ships.[70] The city was still held by the Carthaginians when the war ended with a Roman victory nine years later in 241 BC.[74]

Tension remained high between the two states as they both continued to expand in the western Mediterranean. When Carthage besieged the Roman-protected town of Saguntum in eastern Iberia in 218 BC, it ignited the Second Punic War with Rome.[75]

Notes, citations and sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Battle of Panormus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Battle of Panormus was a pivotal land engagement of the (264–241 BC), fought in 250 BC near the Sicilian city of between the and . Roman forces under proconsul Lucius Caecilius Metellus, numbering approximately 20,000–25,000 infantry, defended against a larger Carthaginian army of over 30,000 troops and 130–140 war elephants commanded by general Hasdrubal. The battle occurred during the Roman harvest of crops outside the city's walls, where Metellus employed light infantry () to harass and provoke the Carthaginian elephants with missile fire, causing the beasts to panic and trample their own lines before Roman launched a devastating flank . This resulted in a crushing Roman victory, with Carthaginian losses estimated at thousands of soldiers and most of their elephants either killed or captured—Romans seized approximately 100–120 alive, later parading them in a triumph in Rome on September 7, 250 BC. The engagement marked one of the final major pitched battles on land in the , following Rome's capture of Panormus itself in 254 BC and preceding the prolonged, ultimately disastrous Roman siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC). Hasdrubal's defeat led to his recall and execution by Carthaginian authorities, shifting Punic strategy in toward guerrilla warfare under commanders like , who fortified key bases such as Drepana. Roman overconfidence after Panormus contributed to strategic errors, including bypassing Drepana, which allowed to regroup and inflict severe naval setbacks on Rome in 249 BC at Drepana and Storm off Camarina. Ancient accounts, primarily from (who dates the battle to 251 BC) and later historians like , Zonaras, and , highlight the battle's tactical ingenuity against elephants, though modern scholarship notes potential chronological manipulations in Roman sources by figures like Fabius Pictor to glorify victories. Overall, Panormus solidified Roman control over much of , weakening 's position and paving the way for the war's naval climax at the Islands in 241 BC.

Historical Sources

Ancient Accounts

The principal ancient source for the Battle of Panormus is , a Greek historian writing in the 2nd century BC, whose Histories (Book 1.39–40) provides the most detailed narrative of the engagement in 250 BC. describes the Caecilius Metellus defeating a Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal, comprising approximately 30,000 infantry, 3,000 cavalry, and 120–140 war elephants, through a defensive strategy involving missile fire from prepared earthworks and a concealed that panicked the elephants and disrupted Carthaginian lines. He emphasizes the Romans' tactical ingenuity in luring the into unfavorable near the city walls, resulting in a rout with heavy Carthaginian losses and the capture of approximately 120 elephants (ten with their mahouts during the battle and the rest penned up afterward), while portraying the victory as a boost for during the protracted . Modern scholarship debates the exact date, with placing the events under the consular year of 251 BC but the battle likely occurring in summer 250 BC. claims to draw on official Roman records and eyewitness-like accounts from Greek and Roman participants, critiquing earlier historians like the pro-Carthaginian Philinus of Agrigentum and the pro-Roman Fabius Pictor for their biases, though his own work reflects access primarily to Roman archival materials. Other ancient authors offer only fragmentary or anecdotal references to the battle. , writing in the , provides brief Sicilian context in his Library of History (Book 23), noting Hasdrubal's defeat and Carthaginian defensive maneuvers around Panormus, likely derived from Philinus' lost history, but lacks a comprehensive battle description and includes potential chronological inconsistencies. , in his 1st-century AD Stratagems (Book 1.5.5 and 2.5.31), recounts tactical details such as the Roman use of fire-arrows and javelins to counter the elephants, presenting these as exemplary military ruses without broader narrative. , in his early 1st-century AD Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium (Book 3.2.3), includes moralizing anecdotes on Roman valor during Punic engagements, possibly alluding to Panormus through references to consular , but offers no specific battle account. The reliability of these sources is constrained by significant limitations, including the destruction of in 146 BC during Punic , which likely eliminated any surviving Carthaginian archives and perspectives on the event. ' pro-Roman bias is evident in his minimization of Roman setbacks and the exaggeration of enemy casualties in ancient accounts—such as later claims of over 20,000 Carthaginian dead—to underscore Roman strategic superiority, though his emphasis on factual accuracy and use of multiple lends greater than the more partisan Philinus or Fabius. Later authors like Diodorus, , and rely on secondary traditions, resulting in condensed or illustrative accounts that prioritize moral lessons over precise , further complicating verification of minutiae like exact troop numbers.

Modern Historiography

In modern scholarship, the Battle of Panormus is often analyzed for its demonstration of Roman tactical adaptability against a numerically superior foe, as explored in Adrian Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage (2000), which emphasizes how Lucius Caecilius Metellus's forces leveraged defensive positioning and infantry cohesion to neutralize Carthaginian elephants and mercenaries. Goldsworthy portrays the engagement as a pivotal moment where Roman resilience began to shift the momentum in during the , underscoring the republic's ability to learn from earlier setbacks like the Agrigentum campaign. Similarly, J.F. Lazenby's The First Punic War: A Military History (1996) provides a critical assessment, arguing that ancient accounts likely inflated Carthaginian casualties—such as later claims of over 30,000 killed—to glorify Roman prowess, and instead posits more realistic figures around 10,000-15,000 based on supply lines and terrain limitations. Debates surrounding the effectiveness of Carthaginian war elephants at Panormus center on their biological and tactical vulnerabilities, informed by interdisciplinary studies in and . Scholars note that the African forest elephants employed, with shoulder heights reaching up to 2.5 meters, were smaller and less armored than their Indian counterparts, making them susceptible to Roman javelin fire that targeted drivers and induced , as detailed in analyses of Hellenistic elephant warfare. This vulnerability aligns with broader patterns observed in contemporary battles, such as those under Pyrrhus, where elephants often disrupted their own lines more than the enemy. Post-2010 research, including comparative studies in journals like , integrates these insights to argue that elephants served primarily as psychological deterrents rather than decisive in Punic contexts, though their at Panormus amplified Roman success without direct engagement. Archaeological evidence remains sparse for the battle itself, with no major finds directly tied to the 250 BC engagement, but excavations across , including at sites near ancient Panormus (modern ), corroborate Punic defensive fortifications through uncovered walls and harbor structures dating to the third century BCE. These discoveries support historiographical shifts toward logistical interpretations, highlighting how Carthage's overextension in undermined their campaign. A notable gap persists in Carthaginian perspectives, as surviving sources are predominantly Greco-Roman, leading modern emphasis on supply chains and economic strains over individual heroism in explaining the battle's outcome.

Background to the Conflict

Outbreak of the

The began in 264 BC amid the revolt in (modern ), where a band of Italian mercenaries known as the , having seized the city, faced by Syracusan forces under Hiero II and a Carthaginian garrison dispatched to counter their uprising. The , divided in their appeals for aid, ultimately turned to after expelling the Carthaginians from , prompting a contentious debate in the over intervention. Despite initial deadlock, a authorized support, and Consul Appius Claudius Caudex led an army across the —the Republic's first major transmarine expedition—clashing with Carthaginian naval forces en route and igniting open war. This Roman incursion directly challenged Carthage's longstanding protectorate over eastern Sicilian ports, escalating a local crisis into a broader Mediterranean conflict. Sicily's geopolitical significance as a natural buffer between and Carthaginian made it a flashpoint, with the island's fertile plains serving as a critical hub for production and export that underpinned both powers' economies and . Control of Sicilian harbors also ensured dominance over vital trade routes, where Carthage's mercantile empire thrived on commerce in metals, timber, and agricultural goods, while sought to extend its influence beyond the mainland to secure these assets. , as the preeminent naval power in the western Mediterranean with a fleet of over 200 warships, viewed Roman expansionism as an existential threat to its maritime supremacy and economic lifelines. In the war's opening engagements, Roman consuls Lucius Postumius Megellus and Quintus Mamilius Vitulus advanced on , Carthage's principal stronghold in southern , initiating a in spring 262 BC that lasted approximately four months amid harsh conditions and failed Carthaginian relief efforts. The city's capture in late summer 262 BC, following a decisive field battle against Punic reinforcements under , marked Rome's first major victory and shifted the conflict toward offensive operations aimed at systematically dislodging Carthaginian garrisons across the island. The brutal sack of Acragas, with its population sold into , yielded substantial plunder that financed Rome's escalating efforts. Rome's broader war aims centered on naval transformation to counter Carthage's seafaring edge, launching a crash program to build 120 quinqueremes modeled on captured Punic vessels and introducing the corvus—a spiked boarding bridge that enabled legionaries to grapple and assault enemy ships as if on land, effectively neutralizing Carthage's ramming tactics. Carthage, conversely, depended on a professional navy for blockades and amphibious support alongside mercenary armies recruited from , Iberia, and to bolster its outnumbered citizen forces in . These contrasting strategies underscored the war's evolution from a Sicilian land dispute to a contest for Mediterranean . Following Acragas, Roman forces pressed further offensives in , consolidating gains against persistent Punic resistance.

Roman Operations in Sicily

Following the Roman victory at the siege of Agrigentum in 262 BC, where consuls Lucius Postumius Megellus and Quintus Mamilius Vitulus captured the city after a prolonged blockade, Roman forces focused on consolidating control over eastern and central . Many inland cities, including , defected to , while coastal strongholds remained aligned with . This phase involved sieges of key Carthaginian-held towns, such as and Camarina, which were seized by Carthage in 259 BC and recaptured by in 258 BC. In 259–258 BC, consul Aulus Atilius Caiatinus, supported by ally and his siege engines, recaptured after a seven-month effort and then Camarina, neutralizing Carthaginian garrisons under Hanno and Hamilcar. These operations secured Roman supply lines and isolated remaining Punic positions, though they strained resources due to disease and extended campaigns. A pivotal shift occurred in 260 BC with Rome's first major naval engagement at Mylae, where consul Gaius Duilius commanded 120 warships equipped with the corvus boarding device against a Carthaginian fleet of similar size led by Hannibal Gisco. The Roman victory, capturing 44 enemy ships and killing or capturing thousands, crippled Carthaginian sea power and enabled Rome to protect Sicilian convoys. This success marked Rome's adaptation from land-based warfare to naval dominance, essential for sustaining operations on the island. The ensuing years from 259 to 254 BC saw a stalemate on land, as Carthaginian generals Hamilcar and conducted raids on Roman-held territories and , exploiting Sicily's rugged terrain where Romans avoided pitched battles. Rome responded by isolating Carthaginian strongholds through sieges rather than open engagements, facing logistical challenges like transporting supplies across the and reliance on Hiero's grain shipments. In 254 BC, consuls Aulus Atilius Caiatinus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus broke the impasse by capturing Panormus after a coordinated land and sea assault with 300 ships, seizing the western Sicilian port and further weakening Punic defenses. These consuls, building on earlier efforts by figures like Duilius, exemplified Rome's strategic evolution toward comprehensive island control ahead of later commands.

The African Campaign

In 256 BC, following their victory at the Battle of Ecnomus, the Roman consuls Marcus Atilius and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus led a fleet of approximately 330 quinqueremes carrying a total of around 140,000 personnel (including crews), with an invasion force of about 26,000 legionaries, to invade Carthaginian , landing unopposed near (modern , ) on the Cape Bon peninsula. Establishing a beachhead by beaching their ships and fortifying a camp, the Romans quickly captured after a brief siege and used it as a base for ravaging the countryside, seizing cattle, slaves, and booty while defeating a Carthaginian relieving force at Adys. Vulso returned to Rome with most of the fleet, leaving in command of 40 ships, 15,000 infantry, and 500 cavalry; then advanced inland, sacking and positioning his forces to threaten directly, prompting the Carthaginians to sue for peace on unfavorable terms that rejected. The campaign's fortunes reversed in spring 255 BC when the Carthaginians, bolstered by the Spartan mercenary general Xanthippus, mounted a counteroffensive near (also known as the Battle of the Bagradas River). Xanthippus reorganized the Carthaginian army of 12,000 , 4,000 , and about 100 war s to exploit the open terrain, where Roman vulnerabilities to flanks and charges could be maximized; in the ensuing , the Romans suffered a catastrophic defeat, with most of their force slaughtered or trampled before the enveloped the survivors. Approximately 13,000–15,000 Romans were killed or captured, including himself, while only about 2,000 under the legate Marcus Manlius escaped to ; Carthaginian losses were light, around 800 mercenaries. This victory under Xanthippus and earlier efforts by the general Hanno demonstrated Carthage's ability to leverage its superior and s against Roman legions adapted for Sicilian hills. Compounding the land defeat, the Roman rescue fleet of 464 quinqueremes dispatched to evacuate the survivors first triumphed over a Carthaginian squadron of 120 ships at Cape Hermaeum but then encountered a violent storm off Camarina on Sicily's southern coast while returning home, wrecking 384 warships and 300 transports with over 100,000 men drowned—the greatest single maritime disaster in Roman history up to that point. Only 80 ships survived, leaving Rome's naval strength severely depleted and highlighting the perils of extended amphibious operations in the face of seasonal weather risks. The African expedition's failure forced to abandon further invasions of the Carthaginian homeland, redirecting resources to rebuild a fleet of over 200 ships by 254 BC while resuming the attritional struggle in , where earlier gains like the capture of Agrigentum had secured a foothold but now demanded cautious consolidation to avoid overextension. This shift reoriented the war toward island-based operations, with wary of repeating the amphibious risks that had cost them dearly in men and vessels.

Prelude to the Engagement

Roman Control of Panormus

In 254 BC, during the First Punic War, the Roman consuls Aulus Atilius Caiatinus and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina led a fleet of approximately 300 ships to Panormus, Carthage's principal stronghold in western Sicily and a vital naval base supporting their operations on the island. The city, protected by strong fortifications, was approached via an amphibious assault that exploited its harbor; the Romans anchored close to the walls, established siege works at two points along the shoreline, and employed battering rams to demolish a tower adjacent to the sea. This allowed troops to storm the "New Town" section near the harbor, prompting the surrender of the "Old Town" to avoid further destruction; the consuls then installed a garrison to secure Roman control before returning to Italy. The capture marked a significant Roman advance, disrupting Carthaginian supply lines and enabling alliances with local Sicilian communities opposed to Punic dominance. By 251 BC, following the Roman at Agrigentum earlier in the war, Caecilius Metellus assumed command as in , tasked with maintaining and fortifying Roman positions around Panormus amid ongoing hostilities. Metellus oversaw the construction of earthworks and defensive trenches near the city walls, designed specifically to counter anticipated Carthaginian elephant charges by creating barriers that channeled the animals into kill zones. These fortifications, combined with elevated positions for missile troops, allowed the Romans to hold the city securely during the harvest season of 251–250 BC, when foraging parties protected allied grain supplies from Carthaginian raids. This period of defensive control strained relations with neighboring Sicilian territories, as Roman demands for provisions and labor exacerbated local tensions, ultimately prompting a Carthaginian counteroffensive to challenge the Roman grip. Panormus itself reflected the island's complex ethnic mosaic, with a population comprising Punic settlers, Greek colonists, and indigenous Sikel inhabitants, many of whom had long chafed under Carthaginian overlordship. The Roman occupation capitalized on this diversity, securing loyalty from anti-Punic factions while imposing tribute and quartering on the city, which further pressured surrounding allied regions and prompted Carthage to mobilize reinforcements. Anticipating a Carthaginian counteroffensive, Metellus conducted extensive of the surrounding terrain and amassed stockpiles of javelins and other projectiles for his (light infantry), emphasizing defensive tactics to avoid open pitched battles beyond the fortified lines. These preparations, informed by prior encounters with war elephants during the African campaign, positioned the Romans to repel incursions effectively while using Panormus as a staging base for broader operations in .

Carthaginian Mobilization

In 250 BC, while the Romans controlled Panormus, the Carthaginian leadership appointed Hasdrubal, son of Hanno, to command the counteroffensive army in , selecting him due to his prior experience leading forces against Roman incursions on the island. Hasdrubal, who had previously commanded Carthaginian troops following defeats at sea, was tasked with organizing reinforcements to challenge Roman dominance in western . Hasdrubal assembled a large expeditionary force at Lilybaeum, comprising 50,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry, primarily mercenaries and Libyan levies, alongside 130 war shipped from . These , a key element of Carthaginian , were gathered from African training centers to bolster the army's intimidation factor against Roman legions. The mobilization emphasized rapid assembly to exploit the harvest season, allowing the force to sustain itself while disrupting enemy . The strategic objective was to challenge Roman control by advancing on Panormus and ravaging supply lines and allied farmlands in western , compelling Lucius Caecilius Metellus to abandon his defensive positions and fight in the open where Carthaginian and held an advantage. This approach aimed to deny Romans opportunities and force a decisive on favorable . Hasdrubal's army marched from Lilybaeum in late summer 250 BC, navigating rugged Sicilian with the elephants positioned at the vanguard to demoralize pursuers. However, Roman scorched-earth policies—systematically burning crops and withdrawing into fortified Panormus—delayed the advance and strained supplies, extending the approach over several weeks. Internally, the force grappled with cohesion issues among its multinational mercenaries, including Libyans, , and , whose loyalties and command structures often clashed under pressure. Additionally, the war elephants, though drilled extensively at Lilybaeum, proved difficult to control in unfamiliar terrain, highlighting ongoing training challenges that would compromise their deployment. These factors set the stage for tactical vulnerabilities during the subsequent confrontation.

Opposing Forces

Roman Army

The Roman army at the Battle of Panormus was commanded by the proconsul Lucius Caecilius Metellus, whose experience in the First Punic War provided seasoned leadership for the engagement. The force totaled approximately 20,000–25,000 men, structured as a standard consular army comprising two Roman legions and two allied alae (wings) of equivalent size. The infantry core consisted of around 4,200 legionaries per Roman legion, organized in the manipular formation with three lines: the younger hastati in front armed with two pila for throwing, the more experienced principes in the middle, and the veteran triarii as a reserve. Soldiers wore heavy protective gear, including the lorica hamata (chain-mail shirt) over a tunic, reinforced with bronze helmets and large rectangular shields (scuta), emphasizing close-quarters combat resilience while the pila served as key anti-elephant weapons by targeting the animals' vulnerable eyes and trunks to induce panic. Light-armed velites, numbering about 1,200 for the consular army, acted as skirmishers with javelins and slings for initial harassment and screening. Cavalry support totaled about 1,200 horsemen (300 Roman equites per legion and equivalent allied), reflecting the Republic's traditional weakness in this arm compared to ; their role focused on flanking protection rather than decisive charges, supplemented by for mobile skirmishing. Metellus' troops had adapted tactics from the earlier African campaign of 256–255 BC, where Marcus Atilius ' army suffered devastating losses to Carthaginian war near , prompting Romans to prioritize missile barrages and orderly retreats to disrupt elephant charges without direct confrontation. This experience, combined with prior successes in , sustained high morale despite initial fears of the beasts, enabling disciplined execution under Metellus' steady command.

Carthaginian Army

The Carthaginian army assembled for the campaign culminating in the Battle of Panormus, under the command of Hasdrubal (son of Hanno), totaled approximately 30,000 , 4,000 , and between 60 and 142 war elephants. The comprised a of mercenaries, including Libyan spearmen serving as , Iberian swordsmen noted for their close-quarters ferocity, and providing skirmishing and shock capabilities with their long swords and shields. This diverse composition underscored Carthage's strategic dependence on recruited foreign units, which brought specialized skills but also introduced challenges in cohesion and loyalty due to differing cultural backgrounds and motivations. War elephants formed a of the Carthaginian tactical doctrine, deployed as to disrupt enemy formations; these beasts were equipped with wicker howdahs to handlers armed with javelins and bows, enhancing their intimidation and ranged assault potential. The cavalry contingent, drawn mainly from Numidian and Libyan riders, emphasized mobility with light-armed horsemen skilled in , scouting, and outflanking—advantages refined through extensive experience in North African operations. Despite these strengths, the force faced significant logistical strains, as the elephants required substantial and , straining supply lines during extended maneuvers, while the handlers often lacked the expertise to manage effectively when they became agitated or uncontrollable, as observed in Carthaginian deployments.

The Battle

Initial Movements

In the summer of 250 BC, Hasdrubal, commanding the Carthaginian forces in with over 30,000 troops and 130–140 war elephants, marched his army from Lilybaeum toward Panormus, a key city under Roman control since its capture in 254 BC. He encamped his troops near the city and, the following day, led them onto the adjacent plain to ravage the crops of Rome's allies, positioning his war elephants prominently in the front ranks to exploit the Romans' known fear of the beasts and draw them into open combat. Lucius Caecilius Metellus, the Roman overseeing the defense with approximately 20,000–25,000 , adopted a strategy of feigned weakness to lure the superior Carthaginian force into a disadvantageous position on the open terrain. He withheld his main legions behind the city walls and a protective recently constructed outside the fortifications, instead deploying light-armed and to conduct harassing skirmishes against the advancing enemy. These probes tested the Carthaginian lines while gradually enticing Hasdrubal to commit his by crossing the . The engagement unfolded on a flat coastal plain that favored the maneuverability of Carthaginian and but allowed the Romans to utilize the trench and walls for defensive cover during their preparatory advances. Limited pre-battle skirmishing ensued, with Roman and maintaining a cautious, defensive posture to avoid direct confrontation until the Carthaginians overextended themselves.

Combat and Elephant Rout

As the Carthaginian forces under Hasdrubal advanced across the river near Panormus, the Romans, commanded by Lucius Caecilius Metellus, executed their anti-elephant strategy with precision. Light-armed positioned along elevated ground, including the city walls and protective ditches, targeted the advancing war with volleys of javelins aimed at their vulnerable eyes and trunks, exploiting the beasts' sensitivity to such attacks. This tactic, drawn from prior Roman adaptations against Carthaginian elephant deployments, rapidly induced panic among the animals, causing them to wheel around and back into the densely packed Carthaginian ranks, trampling their own troops in the ensuing chaos. Seizing the moment of disorder, Metellus launched a decisive flank with his disciplined legionaries against the exposed Carthaginian left wing, shattering their lines and compelling a general retreat. The Roman heavy maintained formation throughout the intense engagement, which unfolded over several hours under the summer heat, resisting the initial momentum of the charge through coordinated missile fire and disciplined ranks. Although was present, their pursuit remained limited, focusing instead on consolidating the victory rather than risking overextension against the fleeing enemy. The reversal of the elephants' role proved catastrophic for the Carthaginians, as the panicked beasts, per the account of , inflicted severe casualties on their handlers and supporting troops before being halted. Of the Carthaginian elephants, ancient sources report around 120 captured alive along with their Indian mahouts, while others were slain in the or driven off into the surrounding terrain, marking a pivotal tactical failure for . This episode underscored the effectiveness of Roman ingenuity in countering what had previously been a formidable psychological weapon.

Conclusion and Casualties

The panicked Carthaginian trampled their own ranks, precipitating a complete of Hasdrubal's army and securing a decisive Roman victory. The surviving Carthaginians fled in disorder to Lilybaeum, abandoning the field to the Romans. Hasdrubal himself escaped the debacle but was subsequently recalled to , where he faced execution for the defeat as per Carthaginian custom following major losses. Roman casualties were comparatively light, with estimates suggesting only a few hundred killed amid the defensive advantage of terrain and prepared positions. Carthaginian losses, however, were severe; later ancient sources claim 20,000 to 30,000 dead, though these figures are widely regarded as inflated for propagandistic effect. In the chaos, the Romans captured the bulk of Hasdrubal's war elephants, with ancient sources like noting around 120 seized alive alongside their mahouts—numbers modern scholars debate as exaggerated but indicative of the scale of the Carthaginian commitment. The Romans also overran and seized the enemy camp, confiscating supplies, baggage, and additional materiel that bolstered their position in . This engagement underscored the efficacy of Roman javelin-armed in targeting from protected positions, a tactic that disrupted beast charges and validated adaptive countermeasures against such weapons, shaping tactics in subsequent Hellenistic conflicts.

Aftermath and Legacy

Immediate Outcomes

The Roman victory at Panormus in 250 BC decisively defeated the Carthaginian army under Hasdrubal, which was advancing to threaten the city, devastate the surrounding crops, and attempt its recapture, allowing Caecilius Metellus to rout the enemy forces and secure the countryside. Many Carthaginian war were killed during the rout, with approximately 120 captured alive along with their handlers, enabling the Romans to plunder the enemy camp and pursue the retreating survivors without significant opposition. This success consolidated Roman control over key areas of western , including the vital port of Panormus, which had been under Roman administration since its capture in 254 BC, thereby preventing further Carthaginian incursions into allied territories. In response, the Carthaginians withdrew their remaining forces to the strongholds of Lilybaeum and Drepana, adopting a defensive strategy centered on these western Sicilian bases while shifting emphasis to naval reinforcements to sustain supply lines. Hasdrubal, blamed for the defeat, was recalled to and executed according to Punic custom following major military failures. This leadership change marked a temporary halt to aggressive land operations by Carthage, as surviving troops under commanders like focused on fortifying Lilybaeum against impending Roman assaults. The battle significantly boosted Roman morale, dispelling the longstanding fear of Carthaginian war elephants that had persisted since earlier encounters in and ; Metellus' forces now viewed the animals as manageable threats after luring them into ambushes with and projectiles. Metellus was granted a triumph in on September 7, 250 BC, during which he paraded the captured elephants through the streets, symbolizing the victory's prestige despite the broader war's ongoing demands and Roman overextension in maintaining multiple fronts. Casualties were heavy for , with thousands slain and the elephant corps decimated, underscoring the battle's immediate tactical impact. Locally, the outcome integrated Panormus more firmly into the emerging Roman administrative framework in , enhancing its role as a secure supply hub and reducing Punic cultural and economic influence in nearby allied cities like Soloeis and , which aligned closer with Roman governance. This shift diminished Carthaginian sway over indigenous populations in western , fostering greater stability for Roman operations amid the protracted conflict.

Strategic Repercussions

The Roman victory at Panormus in 250 BC provided a crucial boost to Roman momentum in the , solidifying control over western and enabling a renewed offensive against remaining Carthaginian strongholds. This success allowed to launch a major of Lilybaeum in the same year, deploying over 100,000 troops and 200 warships to press the advantage, though it bypassed Drepana to focus efforts. Despite subsequent setbacks, including a severe naval defeat at Drepana in 249 BC that temporarily halted Roman advances, the strategic gains from Panormus contributed to a broader push that culminated in the reconstruction of the Roman fleet by 242 BC. This resurgence led to the decisive naval victory at the Egates Islands in 241 BC, which isolated Carthaginian forces in and compelled to seek peace terms. In response to the Panormus defeat, Carthage adapted its strategy by largely abandoning the use of war elephants in Sicilian operations, as the rout of over 100 animals—many captured by Roman forces—exposed their vulnerability to disciplined infantry tactics like volleys and protected formations. Instead, under commanders like from 247 BC onward, Carthage shifted to , employing hit-and-run raids from mountain bases at Eryx and Mount Ercte to harass Roman supply lines and garrisons without committing to large-scale land battles. These tactics prolonged the conflict by denying quick victories on land, forcing a war of attrition that strained both sides' resources over the following decade. The strategic shifts triggered by Panormus ultimately paved the way for the war's conclusion with the in 241 BC, under which ceded to , paid a substantial indemnity of 3,200 talents, and withdrew from the island entirely. This treaty marked Panormus as a turning point in establishing Roman dominance in the western Mediterranean, as the victory disrupted Carthaginian cohesion and allowed to consolidate gains despite earlier naval losses. In the longer term, 's transformation into 's first by 227 BC provided a stable revenue base through grain tithes and taxation, funding subsequent military expansions into , , and beyond, while curtailing 's regional influence.

Symbolic Importance

The victory at Panormus elevated Lucius Caecilius Metellus to heroic status within Roman society, culminating in his triumph on September 7, 250 BC, where he paraded approximately 120 captured Carthaginian elephants through the streets of —the first such spectacle in the city's . This grand procession not only celebrated the military success but also symbolized Roman mastery over a formidable exotic , transforming the elephants from symbols of Carthaginian might into emblems of Roman dominance. The event significantly boosted the prestige of the Caecilii Metelli gens, establishing them as a prominent plebeian family and securing their influence in Roman for generations. The battle's endured through the adoption of the as a heraldic by the Metelli , prominently featured on their coins to commemorate ancestral glory. For instance, various issues of the Caecilii Metelli, such as those minted in the late , depicted or elephant heads, directly alluding to Metellus' capture of the beasts at Panormus and reinforcing the 's victorious legacy. This motif extended to broader , influencing depictions of Punic enemies in triumphal reliefs and funerary monuments, where served as shorthand for overcoming foreign perils and exotic adversaries. In historiography, highlighted the battle in his Histories (Book 1, chapters 39–41) to exemplify Roman resilience and tactical discipline, describing how Metellus' forces overcame their initial terror of the s through strategic use of terrain, missiles, and fortifications, turning the animals' panic against the Carthaginians themselves. This account underscored Rome's adaptability in the face of psychological and logistical challenges during the . Modern scholars view Panormus as a paradigm of early elephant warfare, marking the shift from Roman to effective countermeasures and influencing analyses of ancient innovations. The battle contributed to a lasting Roman self-image as conquerors of elephants, a narrative echoed in later campaigns in Africa, such as those against Jugurtha, where similar tactics and symbolic triumphs reinforced perceptions of imperial invincibility over "barbarian" forces. This cultural trope permeated Roman identity, portraying the empire as tamer of both nature and empire's foes.

References

  1. https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/battles/battle-of-panormus/
  2. https://punicwars.org/first-punic-war/battle-of-panormus
  3. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10142277/1/The%20First%20Punic%20War.pdf
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/637895
  5. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:134680/UQ134680_OA.pdf
  6. https://www.academia.edu/45079278/ELEPHANTS_IN_WAR_AND_VICTORY_THE_DEVELOPMENT_OF_ROMAN_ELEPHANT_WARFARE_AND_ITS_INFLUENCE_IN_ELEPHANTS_ROLE_IN_ROMAN_VICTORY_CELEBRATIONS
  7. https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8H70P28/download
  8. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/6921/5025
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40984822
  10. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217036761.pdf
  11. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/nepos-hannibal/first-punic-war
  12. https://www.academia.edu/115263970/The_Shaping_of_Narrative_in_Polybius
  13. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-5433
  14. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ancient_science_fair
  15. https://digitalcommons.wofford.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=studentpubs
  16. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10142277/1/The%20First%20Punic%20War.pdf
  17. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D25
  18. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D29
  19. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D30
  20. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D34
  21. https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/regulus-bagradas-dragon/
  22. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/august/first-punic-war-audacity-and-hubris
  23. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D37
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/fleets-of-the-first-punic-war/182A266D215BCD23A4C643777979EB04
  25. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D39
  26. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html#38
  27. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html#40
  28. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1B.html
  29. https://www.livius.org/articles/person/hasdrubal-1/
  30. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1B*.html#40
  31. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/carthaginian-warfare
  32. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html
  33. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D40
  34. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/44125/44125-h/44125-h.htm
  35. https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/polybius_one.pdf
  36. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/876/elephants-in-greek--roman-warfare/
  37. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1B*.html
  38. https://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_panormus.html
  39. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lucius-Caecilius-Metellus
  40. https://digitalcommons.ndu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=joint-force-quarterly
  41. https://thescholarship.ecu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d35158af-cba0-424f-9ce5-1644e1c42931/content
  42. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/elephantus.html
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24595359
  44. https://theconversation.com/romans-were-terrified-by-war-elephants-at-first-but-eventually-found-a-way-to-defeat-them-in-battle-234484
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.