12-14-2014, 03:29 AM
Robert wrote:
Any hypothosis requires proving or disproving, which is why the statement as such should be seen as an invitation to discussion.
Thank you Robert, yes it is an invitation to discussion. My intention is to see how well such a hypothesis stands up and I am open to been proven wrong. However, the amount of contradiction that follows in Scipio’s trail creates more questions than answers.
Scipio is mentioned being at Cannae and inspiring the troops trapped within the camp. Scipio’s speech and actions against all those who want to flee Italy is truly building the legend of Scipio. However, the original propagandist fails to mention how Scipio, a 20 year old military tribune got to be in the camp in the first place. Well to be in such a situation he must have fled to the camp like the rest, yet somehow Scipio was not sent to Sicily in disgrace with the rest of the survivors. This is very strange and hints at Scipio not being present at Cannae.
Then there’s Baecula in 208 BC, where Scipio defeats Hasdrubal Barca. The Carthaginians loose 8000 dead and 12,000 captured but somehow Hasdrubal manages to slip past Scipio and arrive in Italy with a new army. Baecula is almost a doublet of Ilipa fought in 206 BC.
According to Polybius (10 38 90 ) “Scipio did not think it advisable to follow Hasdrubal, as he was afraid of being attacked by the other generals, but gave the enemy's camp up to his soldiers to plunder.” So Scipio has time to waste allowing his troops to plunder the enemy camp but not the time to race after the remnants of Hasdrubal’s defeated army. This Scipio seems to have a different personality (cautious) to the Scipio who captured New Carthage (daring). Had Hasdrubal managed to link up with Hannibal, how would Scipio’s mismanagement of allowing Hasdrubal to get away be explained? The answer is there was no need as Baecula was written after the events of the SPW when it was known that Hasdrubal was defeated at the Metaurus in 207 BC. This brings up the question of why invent the battle of Baecula? My explanation is possibly propaganda to show that Scipio was also capable of defeating Hasdrubal and before Nero did, that upstart from the Claudian family.
Livy (30 29) states that Valerius Antius (1st century BC), there was a battle previous to Zama where Hannibal was defeated by Scipio with a loss of 12,000 killed and 1700 taken prisoner and that after this defeat Hannibal went in company with ten delegates to Scipio's camp. Zonaras (14) also reports Scipio defeating Hannibal before Zama:
“When it seemed best to Scipio not to delay any longer, but to draw Hannibal into a struggle whether he wished it or not, he set out for Utica, that by creating an impression of fear and flight he might gain a favourable opportunity for attack; and thus it turned out. Hannibal, thinking that he was in flight, and being correspondingly encouraged, pursued him with his cavalry only. Contrary to his expectations Scipio resisted, engaged in battle, and came out victorious. After routing this body he then directed his attention not to pursuing them, but to their equipment train, which was on the march, and he captured it entire. This caused Hannibal alarm, and his alarm was increased by the news that Scipio had done no injury to three Carthaginian spies whom he had found in his camp. Hannibal had learned this fact from one of them, after the other two had chosen to remain with the Romans.”
The greatest contradiction also occurs around Scipio’s authority. Scipio is supposed to have complete authority in Africa until the war is decided, but other accounts have him ready to be replaced and in Zonaras (14) it is none other than Claudius Nero.
It gets even more absurd when Zonaras (14) writes that “the people of Rome were regretting that they had not prevented Hannibal from sailing home.” This implies a conscious decision was made not to attack Hannibal, which begs the question as to why. The answer could be that a truce was signed that allowed Hannibal to departed Italy in safety. I find it strange that the Romans are concerned about Hannibal being in the court of Antiochus, but seem to be care free about Hannibal being appointed as a Carthaginian magistrate.
Dio 86: Scipio, accordingly, attained great prominence by these deeds, but Hannibal was even brought to trial by his own people; he was accused of having refused to capture Rome when he was able to do so, and of having appropriated the plunder from Italy. He was not, however, convicted, but was shortly afterward entrusted with the highest office in Carthage.”
Even Lazenby (Hannibal’s War page 227), mentions that “there is a gap in Polybius’ narrative after his account of the battle of Zama and the next surviving fragment.” Most of the contradiction and confusion of events occurs after the battle of the Great Plains. Take out the battle of Zama and the so called breaking of the truce by the Carthaginians before Zama, and events make more sense. So before Nero or anyone can take his place, Scipio gets the peace treaty he wants before being replaced. Part of that peace treaty has Hannibal and possibly Mago recalled from Italy. Hannibal lands in Hadrumetum and stays there with his army, and it is this thorn in the Carthaginian negotiations for trying to get the hostages released because the Romans are worried about Hannibal still having an army in the field. One way to separate Hannibal from his army is to make him a Carthaginian magistrate. Then because Hannibal has upset so many Carthaginian senators with his crack down on corruption, the plot to arrest him with the support of the Roman senate is now possible.
Any hypothosis requires proving or disproving, which is why the statement as such should be seen as an invitation to discussion.
Thank you Robert, yes it is an invitation to discussion. My intention is to see how well such a hypothesis stands up and I am open to been proven wrong. However, the amount of contradiction that follows in Scipio’s trail creates more questions than answers.
Scipio is mentioned being at Cannae and inspiring the troops trapped within the camp. Scipio’s speech and actions against all those who want to flee Italy is truly building the legend of Scipio. However, the original propagandist fails to mention how Scipio, a 20 year old military tribune got to be in the camp in the first place. Well to be in such a situation he must have fled to the camp like the rest, yet somehow Scipio was not sent to Sicily in disgrace with the rest of the survivors. This is very strange and hints at Scipio not being present at Cannae.
Then there’s Baecula in 208 BC, where Scipio defeats Hasdrubal Barca. The Carthaginians loose 8000 dead and 12,000 captured but somehow Hasdrubal manages to slip past Scipio and arrive in Italy with a new army. Baecula is almost a doublet of Ilipa fought in 206 BC.
According to Polybius (10 38 90 ) “Scipio did not think it advisable to follow Hasdrubal, as he was afraid of being attacked by the other generals, but gave the enemy's camp up to his soldiers to plunder.” So Scipio has time to waste allowing his troops to plunder the enemy camp but not the time to race after the remnants of Hasdrubal’s defeated army. This Scipio seems to have a different personality (cautious) to the Scipio who captured New Carthage (daring). Had Hasdrubal managed to link up with Hannibal, how would Scipio’s mismanagement of allowing Hasdrubal to get away be explained? The answer is there was no need as Baecula was written after the events of the SPW when it was known that Hasdrubal was defeated at the Metaurus in 207 BC. This brings up the question of why invent the battle of Baecula? My explanation is possibly propaganda to show that Scipio was also capable of defeating Hasdrubal and before Nero did, that upstart from the Claudian family.
Livy (30 29) states that Valerius Antius (1st century BC), there was a battle previous to Zama where Hannibal was defeated by Scipio with a loss of 12,000 killed and 1700 taken prisoner and that after this defeat Hannibal went in company with ten delegates to Scipio's camp. Zonaras (14) also reports Scipio defeating Hannibal before Zama:
“When it seemed best to Scipio not to delay any longer, but to draw Hannibal into a struggle whether he wished it or not, he set out for Utica, that by creating an impression of fear and flight he might gain a favourable opportunity for attack; and thus it turned out. Hannibal, thinking that he was in flight, and being correspondingly encouraged, pursued him with his cavalry only. Contrary to his expectations Scipio resisted, engaged in battle, and came out victorious. After routing this body he then directed his attention not to pursuing them, but to their equipment train, which was on the march, and he captured it entire. This caused Hannibal alarm, and his alarm was increased by the news that Scipio had done no injury to three Carthaginian spies whom he had found in his camp. Hannibal had learned this fact from one of them, after the other two had chosen to remain with the Romans.”
The greatest contradiction also occurs around Scipio’s authority. Scipio is supposed to have complete authority in Africa until the war is decided, but other accounts have him ready to be replaced and in Zonaras (14) it is none other than Claudius Nero.
It gets even more absurd when Zonaras (14) writes that “the people of Rome were regretting that they had not prevented Hannibal from sailing home.” This implies a conscious decision was made not to attack Hannibal, which begs the question as to why. The answer could be that a truce was signed that allowed Hannibal to departed Italy in safety. I find it strange that the Romans are concerned about Hannibal being in the court of Antiochus, but seem to be care free about Hannibal being appointed as a Carthaginian magistrate.
Dio 86: Scipio, accordingly, attained great prominence by these deeds, but Hannibal was even brought to trial by his own people; he was accused of having refused to capture Rome when he was able to do so, and of having appropriated the plunder from Italy. He was not, however, convicted, but was shortly afterward entrusted with the highest office in Carthage.”
Even Lazenby (Hannibal’s War page 227), mentions that “there is a gap in Polybius’ narrative after his account of the battle of Zama and the next surviving fragment.” Most of the contradiction and confusion of events occurs after the battle of the Great Plains. Take out the battle of Zama and the so called breaking of the truce by the Carthaginians before Zama, and events make more sense. So before Nero or anyone can take his place, Scipio gets the peace treaty he wants before being replaced. Part of that peace treaty has Hannibal and possibly Mago recalled from Italy. Hannibal lands in Hadrumetum and stays there with his army, and it is this thorn in the Carthaginian negotiations for trying to get the hostages released because the Romans are worried about Hannibal still having an army in the field. One way to separate Hannibal from his army is to make him a Carthaginian magistrate. Then because Hannibal has upset so many Carthaginian senators with his crack down on corruption, the plot to arrest him with the support of the Roman senate is now possible.
