12-16-2014, 05:26 AM
Robert wrote:
A lot of plausible arguments. However, my main problem would be with the main event - how can you expect to fabricate an entire battle (and not a small skirmish) and expect to get away with it? You'd expect reactions from your readers or your fellow historians - or are we treating this as a giant, empire-wide, cover up? I mean Polybios was born a year after the battle (let's still call it that) so there may even have been people alive who fought in Africa, or direct descendants. It's as if a historian would invent a major WWI battle, and expect us to believe it?
There is also the story of the emperor Claudius claiming the saecular games he was holding was once in a lifetime event. Those who had witnessed the Saecular games held by Augustus were extremely amused. Today we are witness to many a myth becoming factual or even historical. Historians today are still sorting fact from fiction about the First World War and the Second World War. Ask most Japanese about the Rape of Nanking or what the Second World War was about and you will find conflicting accounts. Also we have Christians believing in the bible regardless of the contradictions.
Many years ago I worked on a training film for the police department concerning investigating a murder. The punch line of the teaching was “the clue is in the connection.” One officer describe the process and creating a spoked wheel, with every piece of evidence or contradictions from statements forming a spoke, with all the spokes created would merge into a hub, which was the perpetrator. Obviously that experience influenced my own research methods and I am glad it did.
Anyone who undertakes a serious investigation of Zama and the aftermath will find a lot of contradiction far more so than most SPW campaigns. Personally, I am drawn to contradiction in the primary sources, especially the mathematical data. However, very recently there has been some textual contradictions I found in the primary sources that had lead to a very exciting discovery. I have found events one hundred years apart have been confused by one ancient author. His style of writing gave it away. He builds up the pitch but then gives his story no resolution of climax. However, one hundred years later the resolution can be found. What caused the confusion appearing over one hundred years later is that in both events, the leading players had the same name and both were discussing the same political situation.
From my experience a contradiction in the primary sources is always judged to be either right or wrong. An example of this is the difference in the numbers of allies given for the Romans at Cynoscephalae between Livy and Plutarch. It’s either Livy or Plutarch. Now what if there was a middle ground? What if both were partially wrong?
For me contradictions indicate a middle ground or another story that the contradictions draw from. Some ancient sources state there was an earlier engagement that occurred between Hannibal and Scipio and that after this engagement Hannibal offered peace terms. What if this engagement was embellished and turned into Zama in order to inflate the Scipio myth? And what if this engagement was fought near a place called Zama?
I’ve taken the stance for this thread that the battle of Zama did not happen. Now this may not be what I firmly believe, but I wanted to explore the possibility based on the conflicting information regarding Zama. Most of the replies to this thread have taken place offline. This does not surprise me. A couple of offline replies, have actually added more intrigue to the case, but when all is said and done, can a strong case be made out of contradictory evidence? I feel the only case I can make is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence and far far too many unanswered questions. Therefore, the question is an impasse, with no solid evidence to confirm either way. Hopefully in the future, when I finance an archaeological dig, an ancient library will be found that reveals all.
Dan Howard wrote:
The idea was first proposed by Tunisian writer Abdelaziz Belkhodja but it didn't get much of a following until Yozan Mosig's article in the History Herald. It is just more of the nationalistic rubbish that passes for revisionism these days.
Why is it that some feel that by revising or questioning some event in history means the author has some sinister motive? Is that what you are claiming I am doing Dan? Now do you understand why this discussion has ended up being mainly conducted offline? It’s because people feel safe to express themselves and avoid those close minded judges sitting in their ivory towers putting scorn on the matter.
A lot of plausible arguments. However, my main problem would be with the main event - how can you expect to fabricate an entire battle (and not a small skirmish) and expect to get away with it? You'd expect reactions from your readers or your fellow historians - or are we treating this as a giant, empire-wide, cover up? I mean Polybios was born a year after the battle (let's still call it that) so there may even have been people alive who fought in Africa, or direct descendants. It's as if a historian would invent a major WWI battle, and expect us to believe it?
There is also the story of the emperor Claudius claiming the saecular games he was holding was once in a lifetime event. Those who had witnessed the Saecular games held by Augustus were extremely amused. Today we are witness to many a myth becoming factual or even historical. Historians today are still sorting fact from fiction about the First World War and the Second World War. Ask most Japanese about the Rape of Nanking or what the Second World War was about and you will find conflicting accounts. Also we have Christians believing in the bible regardless of the contradictions.
Many years ago I worked on a training film for the police department concerning investigating a murder. The punch line of the teaching was “the clue is in the connection.” One officer describe the process and creating a spoked wheel, with every piece of evidence or contradictions from statements forming a spoke, with all the spokes created would merge into a hub, which was the perpetrator. Obviously that experience influenced my own research methods and I am glad it did.
Anyone who undertakes a serious investigation of Zama and the aftermath will find a lot of contradiction far more so than most SPW campaigns. Personally, I am drawn to contradiction in the primary sources, especially the mathematical data. However, very recently there has been some textual contradictions I found in the primary sources that had lead to a very exciting discovery. I have found events one hundred years apart have been confused by one ancient author. His style of writing gave it away. He builds up the pitch but then gives his story no resolution of climax. However, one hundred years later the resolution can be found. What caused the confusion appearing over one hundred years later is that in both events, the leading players had the same name and both were discussing the same political situation.
From my experience a contradiction in the primary sources is always judged to be either right or wrong. An example of this is the difference in the numbers of allies given for the Romans at Cynoscephalae between Livy and Plutarch. It’s either Livy or Plutarch. Now what if there was a middle ground? What if both were partially wrong?
For me contradictions indicate a middle ground or another story that the contradictions draw from. Some ancient sources state there was an earlier engagement that occurred between Hannibal and Scipio and that after this engagement Hannibal offered peace terms. What if this engagement was embellished and turned into Zama in order to inflate the Scipio myth? And what if this engagement was fought near a place called Zama?
I’ve taken the stance for this thread that the battle of Zama did not happen. Now this may not be what I firmly believe, but I wanted to explore the possibility based on the conflicting information regarding Zama. Most of the replies to this thread have taken place offline. This does not surprise me. A couple of offline replies, have actually added more intrigue to the case, but when all is said and done, can a strong case be made out of contradictory evidence? I feel the only case I can make is that there is a lot of contradictory evidence and far far too many unanswered questions. Therefore, the question is an impasse, with no solid evidence to confirm either way. Hopefully in the future, when I finance an archaeological dig, an ancient library will be found that reveals all.
Dan Howard wrote:
The idea was first proposed by Tunisian writer Abdelaziz Belkhodja but it didn't get much of a following until Yozan Mosig's article in the History Herald. It is just more of the nationalistic rubbish that passes for revisionism these days.
Why is it that some feel that by revising or questioning some event in history means the author has some sinister motive? Is that what you are claiming I am doing Dan? Now do you understand why this discussion has ended up being mainly conducted offline? It’s because people feel safe to express themselves and avoid those close minded judges sitting in their ivory towers putting scorn on the matter.
