Revisiting Zama

[Michael Collins]

Hi Paul,

I`m sorry, I did not explain this in more detail...
in Polybius` version of the three spies story, Hannibal is unaware of Massinissa`s whereabouts. If a cavalry battle had taken place before Polybius` battle (minus Massinissa) Hannibal would have had the advantage of having Numidian support and Scipio would have no light horse capability at all.
Polybius then has Scipio appear to be the weaker of the two in cavalry forces and so goads Hannibal into a pitched battle.

Hannibal can not be unaware of Massinissa before the great battle AND also conduct negotiations through him. Is Polybius correct about this, or is Appian? Because Polybius has massaged events by adding the spies, I`m rather inclined to accept Appian to be more credible when he accounts for the commander`s first meeting/negotiations.

Livy`s version btw is closer to Herodotos, Scipio demonstrates to the Carthaginian spies the full strength and might of his army, including Massinissa`s forces, and so Scipio undermine`s Hannibal`s confidence and the morale of his army.

In either account, whether it is the deception in Polybius, or the stratagem in Livy, the three spies episode is focused on cavalry advantage; I believe that is perhaps THE element of truth in the whole of Polybius` account of the great battle and the events leading to it.

Yes, I do believe that Roman history is rather distorted in this instance at least. I was going to post on Appian`s version of the battle anyhow, so here goes...

There is in Appian an indication of how the battle was presented to Roman readers before Polybius.
See how Octavius and Themus are given roles commanding parts of the Roman army in the battle (Appian. Punic Wars 9.44) and Massinissa and Laelius are together, on the right of the army.
Appian describes a rather different battle; it must be based upon earlier Roman histories.
Note how the elephants are deployed across the entire Carthaginian front (as per Bagradas), whereas Polybius has them stationed in front of the Celts and Ligurians. Appian tells us the Celts and Ligurians were opposite Octavius, and so were deployed on the Carthaginian right.
Commanding the Roman right, Laelius and Massinissa are opposed by Numidians.

Interestingly, in Appian 9.45/46 the description of the fighting changes and mainly takes place between Scipio, Massinissa and Hannibal. Sometimes it is expressed as single heroic combats, but much of it describes fighting after Massinissa had supported renewed Roman attempts to rout the Carthaginians. There then follow attempts to rally and reorganise and the army commanders reacting to one another`s actions.

By contrast, Polybius` version is more one-sided, Hannibal is quite inactive, non-responsive.
Polybius in his account of the battle was providing a new version of events. Octavius and Thermus are over-looked and their contribution in the great battle of Zama itself and in two other actions in the campaign are edited out. Is it a mere coincidence that Laelius is the only other Roman mentioned in Polybius` version of the battle of Zama?

So, to paraphrase you if I may, why didn`t anyone question Polybius`history at the time?

Polybius was writing after sometime around 150 BC - at that time Carthage`s days are numbered; the city is largely destroyed in 146.
As Polybius wrote for his contemporary Greek audience, would it have taken a while longer to filter back to a Roman one and would it have been no longer a pressing issue when it did?
Anyhow, shortly after the campaign, Africanus` soldiers were given a bonus and retiring veterans had been rewarded with land grants in the territories of Hannibal`s old Italian allies.
As for eye-witnesess who might have blown the whistle; the obvious one, Cato had been replaced by Laelius early in 202 as Scipio`s Quaestor.
Scipio`s field commanders and political allies had been rewarded with military commands, with work on commissions, or as envoys, and supported in their attempts to win big political positions for a decade or so after the end of the war and it would appear that until Polybius writes in the 150`s these commanders were given glory and prestige in Roman histories too.
In addition to this, the official records of Rome are in the "safe hands" of Scipio Africanus` political ally, Publius Licinius Crassus Dives who was Pontifex Maximus from 213-183.

---

Michael wrote:
That Roman history was so distorted within living memory of at least some of those there beggars belief. Many of these soldiers and officers went on to Greece with Flamininus as well as the elephants captured from Carthage.
 
Why do you interpret the embellishment or falsification of the battle of Zama to have taken place between during the lifetime of those that served during Scipio Africanus’ campaign? First, when did Polybius become main stream with the Roman people? Who introduced Polybius to the Roman people? Was it Diodorus? Was the embellishment of Zama begun with the writings of Publius Scipio Africanus son?
 
Michael wrote:
I believe it's been mentioned hereabouts, but the Scipios had many political enemies - Africanus particularly. That these would sit by as history was rewritten is difficult to understand. Rome is not Egypt where, for example, the "heretic" Akhenaten can be literally erased from the record!
 
Goodness Michael, Roman history is full of contradictory stories about the same event. No just one, but many, many such accounts, and putting aside the history of the kings, many of these contradictory accounts are found from the beginning of the republic to the fall of Carthage in 146 BC. And where there are contradictory events, there is error or fabrication.

Not guilty, Paul said this!