05-17-2019, 05:25 AM
Michael wrote:
I followed my own suggestion yesterday. It`s only a detail, but I was looking for the way that battle losses were reported in Appian`s account of Thermus` action and in Polybius for the battle of Zama itself; it`s almost an expression, or a turn of phrase, both sum the losses up as: "...x,000 killed and as many prisioners/captured."
I brought that up a few postings back.
Michael wrote:
No connection then. Not necessarily a common source, but it was Polybius`way of expressing the battle losses in a generalised manner.
Recognising patterns in the primary sources is a good method…and as I have learnt a lot of tiring work. Another pattern is to omit someone’s name. This has been done due to the event being a fabrication. In 403 BC, the elected consular tribunes, while Veii elected a king. Livy claims the king of Veii had a strong like for wealth, had an overbearing temper, and had failed in his candidature for the priesthood. However, Livy’s source completely fails to appropriate a name to this king, and this strongly indicates the king of Veii is a fabrication, invented to show the Roman’s preference for liberty as opposed to the Etruscan’s choice of tyranny.
In 396 BC, Livy mentions two consular tribunes; Cnaeus Genucius and L. Titinius campaigned against the Faliscans and Capenates. While on the march, both consular tribunes were ambushed by the Faliscans and Capenates. During the battle Cnaeus Genucius was killed. The other consular tribune, L. Titinius rallied his men and reformed them on some high ground, and refused to come down to level ground and engage the Faliscans and Capenates. After this, Livy fails to mention the fate of Titinius and his men, who must have remained on that hill for all eternity. In a similar death to Cnaeus Genucius, Livy writes that in 362 BC, the consul L. Genucius was ambushed by the Hernicians and killed. This looks like recycled history and for a reason. After the defeat of Cnaeus Genucius and the unknown fate of L. Titinius, stuck on the hill for all eternity, Furius Camillus was elected dictator. The death of Cnaeus Genucius in 396 BC is recycled history, inserted to give a plausible explanation to electing Camillus as dictator, so as to solely give Camillus the credit for the capturing Veii. When it comes to Camillus, there is a lot of contradictory history surrounding Camillus, and most is recycled history.
Another pattern. In 509 BC, the Romans revolted and overthrew the monarchy when Sextus Tarquinius raped Lucretia. In 449 BC, the Romans revolted against the Decemvirs as a result of the brutal lust by one of the Decemvirs, Appius Claudius (the bad Claudius theme again), who had developed a passion for Verginia, a girl of plebeian birth. In 377 BC, Fabius Ambustus had two daughters (names unknown). The older daughter was married to a patrician, and the younger daughter to a plebeian. The younger daughter was jealous of the customs and dignity allocated to her sister’s husband for being a patrician. The younger daughter confessed to her father Fabius Ambustus about her regret for marrying a husband inferior in birth, and being a plebeian, her husband was barred from having honour or political influence. Fabius Ambustus promised his younger daughter he would conform on her house the same honours given to a patrician. Fabius Ambustus’ actions caused a ten year conflict between the patricians and the plebeians for better plebeian rights.
In the same manner as the rape of Lucretia in 509 BC, the killing of Verginia in 449 BC, and the jealous sister in 377 BC, all allude to being fabrications, and follow the same theme of innocent women being the catalysts for major political reform. The same themes being recycled does get boring and shows the original author had little imagination.
Roman history from the republic to the end of the Second Punic War is also filled with recycled history.
After being defeated at the Trebbia, Scipio is besieged in Cremona and Sempronius is besieged in Placentia. The only way they can be supplied is by boats using the Po. So nothing is happening, and for one ancient source (????), nothing happening is intolerable, so let’s have Sempronius make his way to Rome, dodging Hannibal’s cavalry so he can attend the elections of the new consuls. Then let’s have Sempronius, after voting, make his way back to Placentia, and again participate in being besieged. Polybius has omitted this event. My money is on the fact Polybius did not know this event was a fabrication, but purposely omitted it because it made Sempronius a better man than Scipio. Next piece of fabrication has Hannibal, with 12,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, march on Placentia. The next day Sempronius and Hannibal engage in a set piece battle, while Scipio, remains in Cremona, sitting in front of the fire (????). I have no idea what Scipio was really doing, but he isn’t mentioned fighting with Sempronius, which is strange.
Following Livy (21 59) at the first encounter, the Romans routed Hannibal’s army back to its camp, and then began to attack the Carthaginian camp. At three o’clock, as the Romans were worn out by from trying to capture the camp, Sempronius gave the signal to retire. As soon as Hannibal heard the Roman trumpets blare out the order to retire, Hannibal immediately launched his cavalry to attack the Roman right and left, while Hannibal led the main body of infantry from the middle of the camp. Livy then describes how the fight was equal, and it was the arrival of night that put an end to hostilities and prevented both armies from mutually being destroyed. Is he serious! Both armies separated with equal losses, with 600 infantry and 300 cavalry falling on both sides. Now don’t those casualty figures tell you this is bollocks?
Although the events are reversed, a similar incident appears in the writings of Frontinus, Polyaenus and Zonaras. In 216 BC, at Capau, when facing the army of the dictator Junius Pera, Frontinus has Hannibal order 600 cavalrymen to appear in successive detachments without intermissions around the Roman camp. After being harassed all night, the Romans were worn out by sentry duty and the continuously falling rain. In the morning, when Junius Pera gave the signal for recall, Hannibal led out his army, who had been well rested and captured Junius Pera’s camp by assault. Frontinus (Stratagems 2 5 25)
Michael wrote:
Antias and Appian give us more credible numbers for enemy losses, so did Polybius reject the official figures in favour of the greater and exaggerated claims by Laelius and/or Scipio via Scipio`s son?
Hell, there is no way I can answer that.
I followed my own suggestion yesterday. It`s only a detail, but I was looking for the way that battle losses were reported in Appian`s account of Thermus` action and in Polybius for the battle of Zama itself; it`s almost an expression, or a turn of phrase, both sum the losses up as: "...x,000 killed and as many prisioners/captured."
I brought that up a few postings back.
Michael wrote:
No connection then. Not necessarily a common source, but it was Polybius`way of expressing the battle losses in a generalised manner.
Recognising patterns in the primary sources is a good method…and as I have learnt a lot of tiring work. Another pattern is to omit someone’s name. This has been done due to the event being a fabrication. In 403 BC, the elected consular tribunes, while Veii elected a king. Livy claims the king of Veii had a strong like for wealth, had an overbearing temper, and had failed in his candidature for the priesthood. However, Livy’s source completely fails to appropriate a name to this king, and this strongly indicates the king of Veii is a fabrication, invented to show the Roman’s preference for liberty as opposed to the Etruscan’s choice of tyranny.
In 396 BC, Livy mentions two consular tribunes; Cnaeus Genucius and L. Titinius campaigned against the Faliscans and Capenates. While on the march, both consular tribunes were ambushed by the Faliscans and Capenates. During the battle Cnaeus Genucius was killed. The other consular tribune, L. Titinius rallied his men and reformed them on some high ground, and refused to come down to level ground and engage the Faliscans and Capenates. After this, Livy fails to mention the fate of Titinius and his men, who must have remained on that hill for all eternity. In a similar death to Cnaeus Genucius, Livy writes that in 362 BC, the consul L. Genucius was ambushed by the Hernicians and killed. This looks like recycled history and for a reason. After the defeat of Cnaeus Genucius and the unknown fate of L. Titinius, stuck on the hill for all eternity, Furius Camillus was elected dictator. The death of Cnaeus Genucius in 396 BC is recycled history, inserted to give a plausible explanation to electing Camillus as dictator, so as to solely give Camillus the credit for the capturing Veii. When it comes to Camillus, there is a lot of contradictory history surrounding Camillus, and most is recycled history.
Another pattern. In 509 BC, the Romans revolted and overthrew the monarchy when Sextus Tarquinius raped Lucretia. In 449 BC, the Romans revolted against the Decemvirs as a result of the brutal lust by one of the Decemvirs, Appius Claudius (the bad Claudius theme again), who had developed a passion for Verginia, a girl of plebeian birth. In 377 BC, Fabius Ambustus had two daughters (names unknown). The older daughter was married to a patrician, and the younger daughter to a plebeian. The younger daughter was jealous of the customs and dignity allocated to her sister’s husband for being a patrician. The younger daughter confessed to her father Fabius Ambustus about her regret for marrying a husband inferior in birth, and being a plebeian, her husband was barred from having honour or political influence. Fabius Ambustus promised his younger daughter he would conform on her house the same honours given to a patrician. Fabius Ambustus’ actions caused a ten year conflict between the patricians and the plebeians for better plebeian rights.
In the same manner as the rape of Lucretia in 509 BC, the killing of Verginia in 449 BC, and the jealous sister in 377 BC, all allude to being fabrications, and follow the same theme of innocent women being the catalysts for major political reform. The same themes being recycled does get boring and shows the original author had little imagination.
Roman history from the republic to the end of the Second Punic War is also filled with recycled history.
After being defeated at the Trebbia, Scipio is besieged in Cremona and Sempronius is besieged in Placentia. The only way they can be supplied is by boats using the Po. So nothing is happening, and for one ancient source (????), nothing happening is intolerable, so let’s have Sempronius make his way to Rome, dodging Hannibal’s cavalry so he can attend the elections of the new consuls. Then let’s have Sempronius, after voting, make his way back to Placentia, and again participate in being besieged. Polybius has omitted this event. My money is on the fact Polybius did not know this event was a fabrication, but purposely omitted it because it made Sempronius a better man than Scipio. Next piece of fabrication has Hannibal, with 12,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, march on Placentia. The next day Sempronius and Hannibal engage in a set piece battle, while Scipio, remains in Cremona, sitting in front of the fire (????). I have no idea what Scipio was really doing, but he isn’t mentioned fighting with Sempronius, which is strange.
Following Livy (21 59) at the first encounter, the Romans routed Hannibal’s army back to its camp, and then began to attack the Carthaginian camp. At three o’clock, as the Romans were worn out by from trying to capture the camp, Sempronius gave the signal to retire. As soon as Hannibal heard the Roman trumpets blare out the order to retire, Hannibal immediately launched his cavalry to attack the Roman right and left, while Hannibal led the main body of infantry from the middle of the camp. Livy then describes how the fight was equal, and it was the arrival of night that put an end to hostilities and prevented both armies from mutually being destroyed. Is he serious! Both armies separated with equal losses, with 600 infantry and 300 cavalry falling on both sides. Now don’t those casualty figures tell you this is bollocks?
Although the events are reversed, a similar incident appears in the writings of Frontinus, Polyaenus and Zonaras. In 216 BC, at Capau, when facing the army of the dictator Junius Pera, Frontinus has Hannibal order 600 cavalrymen to appear in successive detachments without intermissions around the Roman camp. After being harassed all night, the Romans were worn out by sentry duty and the continuously falling rain. In the morning, when Junius Pera gave the signal for recall, Hannibal led out his army, who had been well rested and captured Junius Pera’s camp by assault. Frontinus (Stratagems 2 5 25)
Michael wrote:
Antias and Appian give us more credible numbers for enemy losses, so did Polybius reject the official figures in favour of the greater and exaggerated claims by Laelius and/or Scipio via Scipio`s son?
Hell, there is no way I can answer that.
