07-19-2019, 11:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2019, 12:36 PM by Michael Collins.)
So, a little more is needed I think, to pad out the bare bones of my speculative outline of the campaign...
I believe that the deciding factors of the campaign of 202 were the Numidians and each army's potential cavalry strength on the battlefield.
These are surely the reasons why Scipio marched west along the Bagradas early in the month of October of 202; he needed to isolate Hannibal from his Numidian ally, Vermina and unite with his own ally Massinissa. He then needed to defeat both Vermina and Hannibal in detail.
In this way, Scipio using his cavalry to a definite advantage would avoid a large-scale battle in which Hannibal would have an advantage in infantry. Scipio then (or maybe it was Laelius?) decided to take up a central position; if there was anything great, or masterly in the generalship of the Zama campaign it had to be this strategic manoeuvre by Roman forces.
Some days before the battle at Zama, having counter marched to Margaron or Partha (Polybius or Appian respectively) and camping some distance from Hannibal at Zama, Scipio was reinforced by Massinissa. Hannibal was unaware of this development and so he was ambushed as he followed his enemy`s retrograde movements.
It was very much as Cassius Dio (Book 17. IX, 14) described it;
"When it seemed best to Scipio not to delay any further but to involve Hannibal in conflict whether he wished it or not, he set out for Utica, that by creating an impression of fear and flight he might gain a favorable opportunity for attack; and this was what took place. Hannibal, thinking that he was in flight and being correspondingly encouraged, pursued him with cavalry only. Contrary to his expectations Scipio resisted, engaged in battle and came out victorious."
Appian places this action at the start of the campaign but he only covers it briefly, without mention of a surprise or of a reversal of fortunes. However, he does identify the location of the battle:
"About this time there was a cavalry engagement between the forces of Hannibal and those of Scipio near Zama, in which the latter had the advantage." (The Punic Wars 8.36).
The sudden appearance of Massinissa at Zama is perhaps the one grain of truth that was left behind after Polybius has revised the battle. Perhaps it was Polybius or an earlier author who originally added Herodotus` three spies story in order to make the deception appear deliberately controlled by Scipio. By contrast, at the meeting between the two great captains before Zama, Hannibal is made to appear weak as he tries to negotiate, but Scipio with Fortune on his side, is shown to be strong, righteous and pious and because of this, Scipio determined what was to follow.
But this is a story completely turned on its head by Appian, who tells us of negotiations and a settlement that took place AFTER the battle near Zama!
But the real battle of Zama had to be omitted lest it conflict with the three spies fiction and everything else about Zama. Once the three spies lie was introduced into the narrative, other elements in the histories that existed before Polybius had to be removed too and so along with the real battle of Zama, the independent actions by Scipio`s subordinates were also erased.
In truth, these actions were probably more important and decisive than the real battle of Zama, but taking place AFTER Zama, his subordinates could not be allowed to reduce the importance of Scipio`s own victory and challenge Scipio`s qualification for a Triumph.
Only days after Zama there came the capture of "a supply train" by Quintus Minucius Thermus (Appian The Punic Wars 8.36). This is interesting, but I believe that the overall strategic situation did not allow for Hannibal's lines of communication to be threatened and for a possible ambush of his supply train. I suspect that the 8,000 Carthaginians killed or captured were in fact, a reinforcement from Vermina.
Secondly, in December 202, Gaius Octavius finally defeated Vermina (Livy. 30.36) and Livy, who most likely had it from Valerius Antias, listed Vermina`s force as being 16,200.
In all this, in Polybius` history, the roles of Scipio`s Numidian auxiliaries and Massinissa were downplayed or suppressed. But the decisive battles of 202 were either cavalry actions, or were at least, actions involving large bodies of Numidian cavalry.
Qualification for a Triumph was dependent upon there being 5,000 enemy killed in battle, but it is quite unlikely that Hannibal had that many cavalry in total and if Appian is to be believed, he would have still had a cavalry force to be able to skirmish against the Romans for days after the battle at Zama.
In order to gain victory and a Triumph, something more substantial was required and so I would suggest that a fabricated version of battle of Zama existed before Polybius. I think that it survives in Appian where there is a contradiction between the battle dispositions that are obviously taken from Polybius and another section that follows in which Appian describes the infantry actions involving Scipio`s subordinates:
"The Roman right wing, where Laelius commanded, put the opposing Numidians to flight, and Massinissa struck down their prince, Massathes, with a dart, but Hannibal quickly came to their rescue and restored the line of battle. On the left wing, where Octavius commanded and where the hostile Celts and Ligurians were stationed, a doubtful battle was going on. Scipio sent the tribune Thermus [Quintus Minucius Thermus.] thither with a reinforcement of picked men, but Hannibal, after rallying his left wing, flew to the assistance of the Ligurians and Celts, bringing up at the same time his second line of Carthaginians and Africans. Scipio, perceiving this, brought his second line in opposition." (The Punic Wars 9.44).
How official this account appears to be at source to have emphasis upon specific mentions of Roman officers and their actions; it is quite possible that it originates from Scipio himself.
Roman histories before Polybius were probably informed by Scipio`s own account, and consisted of the actual battle followed by an official fabricated version of the battle, but Polybius elaborated further on the fabrication and edited the real battle out of the story altogether. Well, that is until Appian puts the pieces back together again in the middle of the C2nd AD.
I believe that the deciding factors of the campaign of 202 were the Numidians and each army's potential cavalry strength on the battlefield.
These are surely the reasons why Scipio marched west along the Bagradas early in the month of October of 202; he needed to isolate Hannibal from his Numidian ally, Vermina and unite with his own ally Massinissa. He then needed to defeat both Vermina and Hannibal in detail.
In this way, Scipio using his cavalry to a definite advantage would avoid a large-scale battle in which Hannibal would have an advantage in infantry. Scipio then (or maybe it was Laelius?) decided to take up a central position; if there was anything great, or masterly in the generalship of the Zama campaign it had to be this strategic manoeuvre by Roman forces.
Some days before the battle at Zama, having counter marched to Margaron or Partha (Polybius or Appian respectively) and camping some distance from Hannibal at Zama, Scipio was reinforced by Massinissa. Hannibal was unaware of this development and so he was ambushed as he followed his enemy`s retrograde movements.
It was very much as Cassius Dio (Book 17. IX, 14) described it;
"When it seemed best to Scipio not to delay any further but to involve Hannibal in conflict whether he wished it or not, he set out for Utica, that by creating an impression of fear and flight he might gain a favorable opportunity for attack; and this was what took place. Hannibal, thinking that he was in flight and being correspondingly encouraged, pursued him with cavalry only. Contrary to his expectations Scipio resisted, engaged in battle and came out victorious."
Appian places this action at the start of the campaign but he only covers it briefly, without mention of a surprise or of a reversal of fortunes. However, he does identify the location of the battle:
"About this time there was a cavalry engagement between the forces of Hannibal and those of Scipio near Zama, in which the latter had the advantage." (The Punic Wars 8.36).
The sudden appearance of Massinissa at Zama is perhaps the one grain of truth that was left behind after Polybius has revised the battle. Perhaps it was Polybius or an earlier author who originally added Herodotus` three spies story in order to make the deception appear deliberately controlled by Scipio. By contrast, at the meeting between the two great captains before Zama, Hannibal is made to appear weak as he tries to negotiate, but Scipio with Fortune on his side, is shown to be strong, righteous and pious and because of this, Scipio determined what was to follow.
But this is a story completely turned on its head by Appian, who tells us of negotiations and a settlement that took place AFTER the battle near Zama!
But the real battle of Zama had to be omitted lest it conflict with the three spies fiction and everything else about Zama. Once the three spies lie was introduced into the narrative, other elements in the histories that existed before Polybius had to be removed too and so along with the real battle of Zama, the independent actions by Scipio`s subordinates were also erased.
In truth, these actions were probably more important and decisive than the real battle of Zama, but taking place AFTER Zama, his subordinates could not be allowed to reduce the importance of Scipio`s own victory and challenge Scipio`s qualification for a Triumph.
Only days after Zama there came the capture of "a supply train" by Quintus Minucius Thermus (Appian The Punic Wars 8.36). This is interesting, but I believe that the overall strategic situation did not allow for Hannibal's lines of communication to be threatened and for a possible ambush of his supply train. I suspect that the 8,000 Carthaginians killed or captured were in fact, a reinforcement from Vermina.
Secondly, in December 202, Gaius Octavius finally defeated Vermina (Livy. 30.36) and Livy, who most likely had it from Valerius Antias, listed Vermina`s force as being 16,200.
In all this, in Polybius` history, the roles of Scipio`s Numidian auxiliaries and Massinissa were downplayed or suppressed. But the decisive battles of 202 were either cavalry actions, or were at least, actions involving large bodies of Numidian cavalry.
Qualification for a Triumph was dependent upon there being 5,000 enemy killed in battle, but it is quite unlikely that Hannibal had that many cavalry in total and if Appian is to be believed, he would have still had a cavalry force to be able to skirmish against the Romans for days after the battle at Zama.
In order to gain victory and a Triumph, something more substantial was required and so I would suggest that a fabricated version of battle of Zama existed before Polybius. I think that it survives in Appian where there is a contradiction between the battle dispositions that are obviously taken from Polybius and another section that follows in which Appian describes the infantry actions involving Scipio`s subordinates:
"The Roman right wing, where Laelius commanded, put the opposing Numidians to flight, and Massinissa struck down their prince, Massathes, with a dart, but Hannibal quickly came to their rescue and restored the line of battle. On the left wing, where Octavius commanded and where the hostile Celts and Ligurians were stationed, a doubtful battle was going on. Scipio sent the tribune Thermus [Quintus Minucius Thermus.] thither with a reinforcement of picked men, but Hannibal, after rallying his left wing, flew to the assistance of the Ligurians and Celts, bringing up at the same time his second line of Carthaginians and Africans. Scipio, perceiving this, brought his second line in opposition." (The Punic Wars 9.44).
How official this account appears to be at source to have emphasis upon specific mentions of Roman officers and their actions; it is quite possible that it originates from Scipio himself.
Roman histories before Polybius were probably informed by Scipio`s own account, and consisted of the actual battle followed by an official fabricated version of the battle, but Polybius elaborated further on the fabrication and edited the real battle out of the story altogether. Well, that is until Appian puts the pieces back together again in the middle of the C2nd AD.
