encyclopædia battles ·
the same year · every reckoning
bc
249 bc
bce
249 bce
a.u.c.
dv
b.p.
2,199
holocene era
9,752
olympiad
132 · year 4
anno mundi
3,513

the sacred chickens and the disaster at drepana

proelium drepanitanum

the anecdote is famous: a consul throws the augural chickens overboard and loses the fleet the same day. the defeat was real and catastrophic; the scene with the chickens is told by cicero two centuries later, and polybius does not so much as mention it.

eighteenth-century engraving of the naval battle of drepana, with the carthaginian fleet leaving the harbour
engraving from «histoire de polybe», translated by dom vincent thuillier · public domain
period
middle republic

the story everyone remembers says that rome lost an entire fleet because a consul lost his temper with some chickens that would not eat their breakfast. the defeat is strictly true. with the scene of the chickens one has to be more careful.

the year is 249 bce. after a decade of naval disasters, rome was keeping its navy afloat with difficulty, and from the blockade of lilybaeum it was preparing a surprise strike against drepana, the carthaginian harbour at the western tip of sicily. in command was the consul publius claudius pulcher.

before a battle, roman religion required that the will of the gods be consulted through the pulli, the sacred chickens that travelled with the army. if they ate greedily and let grain fall from their beaks —the tripudium solistimum— the omen was favourable; if they refused to eat, it was not. according to cicero, that morning the chickens did not eat, and claudius pulcher had them thrown overboard with a line that became famous: if they will not eat, let them drink.

the defeat is in polybius. the chickens are not.

and there is the nuance that is almost always lost. the one who tells the anecdote is cicero in de natura deorum, writing two centuries after the event and with an argumentative purpose of his own: he is discussing divination, and the episode serves him as an example. polybius, the source closest to the war and the best informed about it, narrates the battle of drepana in detail and never mentions the chickens at any point. that does not prove the story false —the contempt of the claudii for religious form was a commonplace of roman propaganda— but it does make it a later tradition rather than a dispatch from the campaign.

what is documented is the defeat, and no impiety was needed to explain it. the roman fleet entered the bay of drepana in disorder and without having scouted the ground. the carthaginian admiral adherbal, instead of letting himself be bottled up, took his ships out through the harbour’s other exit, won the open sea and pinned the romans against the coast itself, with no room to manoeuvre or to row. carthage captured or sank ninety-three ships. it was the only great carthaginian naval victory of the entire war.

rome was left without a fleet, without public money to rebuild it and with morale on the floor. claudius pulcher was prosecuted on his return. and a couple of years later, with the war stalled in sicily, carthage would put the command of the island in the hands of a general who would turn the life of the legions into a hell: hamilcar barca, the father of hannibal.

⁕ video chapters ⁕
@yodidac · tiktok the sacred chickens and the disaster at drepana play
@yodidac
⁕ ⁕ ⁕ apparatus ⁕ ⁕ ⁕

fontes classicae.

  1. i. polybius · histories book i, 49-51
  2. ii. cicero · de natura deorum book ii, 7

modern bibliography.

  1. i. adrian goldsworthy · the punic wars
dídac
⁕ about the author ⁕

dídac

history communicator. writes about ancient political history and the rage his own century gives him. building an encyclopædia romana on the internet — and a few rooms more.

⁕   responsa   ⁕

questions on this entry

all the responsa
¿no es lo mismo lo de los pollos sagrados de drépano que lo de odiseo y las vacas de helios?

el paralelo es buenísimo, y justo por eso conviene separarlos: la estructura de la historia es idéntica, pero el estatuto de la fuente es opuesto, y ahí está lo interesante.

en homero el sacrilegio es la causa dentro del relato. los compañeros de odiseo se comen las vacas de helios sabiendo que no deben, helios exige reparación y zeus parte la nave con un rayo. no hay nada que separar: el poema es la historia del castigo, y la ofensa está puesta ahí para explicarlo.

en drépano no funciona así. polibio, que es la fuente más cercana a la guerra y la mejor informada, narra la batalla con todo detalle —la flota romana entrando en desorden en una bahía sin reconocer, aderbal saliendo por la otra boca del puerto y acorralándolos contra la costa— y no menciona los pollos ni una vez. la escena de claudio pulcro deshaciéndose de los pollos aparece por primera vez en cicerón, dos siglos más tarde, dentro de una prueba filosófica sobre la providencia de los dioses. no es un parte de campaña: es un ejemplo traído a un argumento. después la repiten livio, suetonio, valerio máximo y floro — pero todos ya en esa cadena tardía, no en la documentación de la guerra.

en homero el sacrilegio explica la derrota. en drépano la derrota se explica sola, y el sacrilegio llegó después.

eso no prueba que sea falsa —el desprecio de los claudios por las formas religiosas era un tópico romano de siglos, y suetonio encuadra así a la familia entera—. lo que prueba es que es tradición posterior, no testimonio. y el mecanismo que la hizo circular es el mismo que en homero: a una catástrofe le sienta mejor una causa moral que una mala decisión náutica

homero, odisea xii (las vacas de helios: el sacrilegio es la causa dentro del propio relato, y zeus destruye la nave)
polibio, historias i, 49-51 (narra drépano con detalle y no menciona los pollos en ningún momento)
cicerón, de natura deorum ii, 7 (la aparición MÁS ANTIGUA, dos siglos después; y no dice «por la borda» sino «mergi eos in aquam iussit», mandó sumergirlos)
la escena reaparece luego en livio, períocas 19.2 · suetonio, tiberio 2.2 · valerio máximo 1.4.3 y 8.1 · floro 1.18.29 — cicerón es la primera, no la única
answered in spanish