Query on Polybius' Histories.

Normally I'd let the eye move on but it pertains to a project I have underway. Does Golosses merely mean something like: "Therefore you do not trust myself or my city so you come prepared for violence or treachery" or is there something else at play that I'm neglecting to see. I've attached the greek text just in case it serves a purpose in clearing this up, I just need to be sure.

Any help is appreciated.



Etaoin Shrdlu

As far as I can see, he's saying, given that Hasdrubal says he's afraid of the Romans, that he wouldn't have come there without some pressing reason. So he asks what he wants – i.e. what the reason is.
Yeah, that makes sense from a Numidian perspective but not from Hasdrubal's, hence me wondering if I'm missing something.

If this is to be believed (and I don't doubt it as Polybius was right in the middle of all this with Scipio) then it does seem rather strange, considering by this time Numidia's absolute dominance of the North African coast, it's relationship with Rome and the very fact Hasdrubal's actions against Rome left him sod-all in the bargaining chips department. Or perhaps it's just pure desperation.

Sidenote to any who're Polybius readers, longshot but worth a try.

Why does Polybius pertain to Golosses as king of the Numidians? If any of Masinissa's sons deserve that title than surely it's Micipsa? Now Micipsa did seem to waver in his support for Rome and judging by Scipio's later remarks to said king (according to Polybius), leads me to wonder if there's been a misprint in the Histories at some point, between the three Numidian sons of Masinissa. I'm basing this assumption on Golosses being Galussa (given charge of war) but even this I can't pin down by date.

I think I need to crack open Appian in the hope he fills in the gaps.

Any info pertaining to this above Numidian query will be appreciated.
A misprint is the wrong word. More an error, you know I'm not even sure how many surviving copied books from antiquity of any one author there is or was. I'm assuming authors like Polybius were plentyful so I suppose a simple cross-reference is all that's needed but surely there was variations between later copied texts? It would be a tad disappointing if we were solely relying on one surviving copied Polybius text from the 9th century AD say as the primarily source to all future copies.
It appears Codex Vaticinus 124 from the eleventh century is the best preserved text on Polybius. It's about time I started jotting down these dates from my loeb editions and websites, it's handy to know. Considering how much I use these materials, I should really know more about how these texts come to us.