Zama: The Battle That Never Was?

[Walhaz]

I agree that it can be very hard to really "know." Often there are contradictions and inconsistencies and conflicting accounts and so on ad infinitum. Often there are logical reasons why something would have happened differently, or not at all, or in a different place. And when you compile all of those inconsistencies together, they can point to a truly remarkable hypothesis. If the hypothesis is logically consistent and confounds refutation, the temptation to fully embrace it can be very strong. The best way to test a hypothesis like this (which is otherwise untestable) is to turn it on its head and inside out, a.k.a. try to defend the hypothesis that Cannae never happened. (There are many, many inconsistencies and contradictions about that battle as well.) If just the idea that Cannae never happened offends the sensibilities, then I would rethink the original hypothesis because offense at the idea that Cannae never happened but embrace of the idea that Zama never happened is a pretty clear indication of some kind of bias in the thought process.

Please understand I am not claiming that anyone in this thread or who has written about Cannae or Zama is biased or has not thought this subject through: this is a thought exercise that I came up with to identify bias in my own cognitive processes.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Histories are full of oddities which either did or did not happen. As far as I am aware the only historian to mention the Battle of Vagabanta, where the Emperor Valens defeated Sharpur II and his Sassanids, is Ammianus. One could quite easily claim that this battle never happened because no EXISTING history mentions it, and in fact had Ammianus not mentioned it we would never have known that Valens had faced Sharpu in battle and been victorious.

But, look at the word I hightlighted above, EXISTING. We have a great problem with our historical knowledge of the past. And the problem is down to the fact that very few histories have survived the passage of time. Olympidorus, Eunapius, Cassiodorus all wrote histories now lost or found as fragments in other ancient historian's works. Who knows what priceless knowledge vanished along with those missing or now totally lost histories?

I myself lament the fact that the first 13 books of Ammianus have not survived the passage of time as they would have shed light on a period of Roman history before the reign of Constantine which is sadly lacking now.

[JaM]

This theory hasa lot of flaws.. First and foremost - Scipio "Africanus" was not that popular with Roman senate, after all, he was accused of taking money, and he left Rome because of that accusation and died in exile. Why would anybody fabricate story about somebody like that? Why not making things up about Cato the Elder? after all, he was also present in African expedition..and why would they award him with a Triumph, and imperium to negotiate peace terms with Carthage? Why would Carthage pay such indemnity, if they still had Hannibal and his African veterans available?

Regarding Scipio not following Hastrubal further, one should take into assumption the way how Senate assigned armies - Scipio had Imperium for Spain, not Gallia or Italy. That was jurisdiction of other consul. Besides, letting Hatrubal go, meant there were much smaller resistance in Spain, while he kew exactly what forces were waiting for Hastrubal in Italy.

Oh, and besides, Zama was not the first battle Hannibal was defeated... Marcus Claudius Marcellus defeated Hannibal during siege of Nola, so Hannibal lost his status of undefeated general long before Zama..

[FlaviusCrispus]

If the battle of Zama never happened and Hannibal was undefeated, then I guess Carthage must have won the Second Punic War, huh? Which meant the Roman Empire never rose, let alone fell, and the Western world would all be speaking a derivative of Phoenician...

[Sextus Saturninus]

Antiochus,

If Polybius made up Zama, then why did he not cover up Cannae?

[Eleatic Guest]

Hell... I am not even convinced that the UK really was among the winners of WW2!

On the danger of being off-topic and touching political nerves, this is an easy one:
- From the largest world empire of history to a middle power within the span of a mere five years.
- Defending Eastern Europe against brown totalitarianism only to hand it on a plate to red totalitarianism.
- Going from expansive imperialism to corrosive multiculturalism within a generation.

Clear case: WW II was lost.

[Sextus Saturninus]

I think we should get back to the battle of Zama...

[antiochus]

Robert wrote:
I was merely very interested why we don't find anything (at least no one told me) about Polybius being ridiculed.

Good question and one I have tried to answer myself. At the Ticinuc, Polybius and Livy credit Scipio as saving his father, but Livy (21 46) further elaborates that “Caelius assigns the honour of saving the consul to a Ligurian slave, but I would rather believe that it was his son; the majority of authors assert this and the tradition is generally accepted.”

Here we have a contradiction as to who saved Scipio’s father, but the tradition is to believe it was Scipio Africanus. This could be the same Caelius Antipater who wrote a history of the SPW. So again contradiction appears when associated with Scipio. However, although Livy believes the tradition of Scipio saving his father is generally accepted, it does not mean it is correct.

Tradition follows that Varro was the Roman commander at Cannae, even though Paullus’ position on the battlefield indicates Paullus would be the chief commander. Polybius claims in Hannibal’s speech at Zama that Paullus was the chief commander at Cannae, yet I cannot find any criticism in the ancient sources ridiculing Polybius for having Paullus as the commander. Polybius writes about the Roman constitution which every modern historian I have read states Polybius got it wrong, yet again, I cannot find any ancient Roman author ridiculing Polybius.

Robert wrote:
2 - What, if correct, does the invention of Zama mean to us for accepting Polybius as a source? For if correct, we'd be forced to doubt everything Polybius writes and which we can't confirm from other sources, right?

It doesn’t mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. It could have been the preliminary battle Livy’s details in which Hannibal’s cavalry went in pursuit and was ambushed by Scipio’s forces.

Seriously, how many on this forum are even aware of the incorrect army numbers given by Polybius? Out of curiosity how many on this forum have even studied them? If so how many have found the same mistake Polybius makes in the army number accounts found in Livy from 219 BC to 167 BC? How many after doing this research have come to the realisation that Polybius has given us a false understanding of what a consular army was?


Macedon wrote
Arguing against the POSSIBILITY that the battle of Zama (or any other historical event) did not happen is futile because there will always be arguments that cannot be answered, arguments about the possibility of the sources being biased, blackmailed, paid off to do a job, fabricated, lied to etc.

As I stated in a previous thread, my mistake is to try and make a case out of contradictions. There is no way to resolve it. I made that statement to stop any further discussion on the matter.

[antiochus]

David wrote:
This is just another case of historical bomb-throwing by the hyper-nationalist, "deconstructionist" faction that sees all of history through the lens of current political expediency.

So is that what I am David, a hyper-nationalist deconstructionist?

[Robert]

Well, as the link to policework has already been laid, let's see if there is MOTIVE in the alleged fabrication of the Battle of Zama. Also, there may be a gray area. That there was a clash of some sort at Zama, but it was blown up to something much bigger and decisive. So it is not an entire fabrication, but a half-lie or half-truth. These are more difficult to counter then the clearcut variaty. So, in order to understand the WHAT, we must question the WHY.

[john m roberts]

Well, as the link to policework has already been laid, let's see if there is MOTIVE in the alleged fabrication of the Battle of Zama. Also, there may be a gray area. That there was a clash of some sort at Zama, but it was blown up to something much bigger and decisive. So it is not an entire fabrication, but a half-lie or half-truth. These are more difficult to counter then the clearcut variaty. So, in order to understand the WHAT, we must question the WHY.

Good thought. To Texans, the Battle of the Alamo was an epic comparable to Thermopylae. To the victor, Santa Anna, it was "but a trifling affair." The perceptions of an event after the fact often vary widely depending on the viewer, and the manipulation of historical fact or fiction for political purposes has a long, long history. See George Orwell on this subject.

[JaM]

Zama was decisive. Otherwise Carthage would not yield to Scipio. Indemnity they had to pay was just too huge to be payed if there was no reason behind it. Plus, Zama was not mentioned just by single historian..

[Justin I]

I myself lament the fact that the first 13 books of Ammianus have not survived the passage of time as they would have shed light on a period of Roman history before the reign of Constantine which is sadly lacking now.

Me too. One of my favorite authors and one of my favorite periods. I guess there's always Zosimus.

This is just another case of historical bomb-throwing by the hyper-nationalist, "deconstructionist" faction that sees all of history through the lens of current political expediency. Similar is the "Jesus Christ never lived, was an invented character" crowd which is impervious to any counter-argument.

I think that's a bit harsh. I don't think this a hyper-nationalist view, just a hyper-skeptical view. I have heard some argue that Hannibal was actually not a very good general, and that Polybius lied about him to glorify Scipio. For the record, I disagree with both claims: we can be reasonably certain that Zama happened, and we can be reasonably certain Hannibal was a great general.

But that bit about Jesus Christ, yeah, I agree. I've never understood why anyone would claim Jesus didn't exist, and that's coming from me, an atheist. I guess anything's possible, but I think we can be 95 percent sure Jesus really existed.

[Urselius]

Hell... I am not even convinced that the UK really was among the winners of WW2!

On the danger of being off-topic and touching political nerves, this is an easy one:
- From the largest world empire of history to a middle power within the span of a mere five years.
- Defending Eastern Europe against brown totalitarianism only to hand it on a plate to red totalitarianism.
- Going from expansive imperialism to corrosive multiculturalism within a generation.

Clear case: WW II was lost.

The reason for the sudden collapse of British power was the attitude of the government of the USA. Britain bankrupted itself to pay for the war. Immediately hostilities ceased the USA unexpectedly revoked the Lease-Lend agreement and as a result Britain had to negotiate a further huge loan. The British government then concentrated the whole national effort into exporting manufactures in order to pay off the debt to the USA. As a result the late 1940s and early 1950s were dreary and pinched in Britain. Food rationing extended into the 1950s and bread, which had not been rationed during wartime, became a rationed foodstuff in peacetime! While West Germany was being rebuilt by American dollars, the US's erstwhile ally was contracting under swingeing economies. The drive to export meant that little was reinvested in updating the infrastructure and manufacturing plant in Britain. This is why Germany won the peace; its industry had been flattened, but US dollars ensured that what was rebuilt was modern. The last payment by Britain to the US was made on 29 December 2006.

[Bryan]

I don't understand the issues with discrepancies in the historical record. We're discussing a time period when the concept of history was imperfect at best (not like it's perfect now). Just because some of the accounts don't match up, doesn't mean the story is false. Take the case of the hair and eye color of C. Julius Caesar. How many sources contradict one another? Does that mean he didn't exist?

Some evidence that the battle of Zama occured:
- Massive reparations laid against Carthage after the war, almost 3 times higher than their indemnity after the 1st Punic War, evidence of major political bargaining leverage by the Romans, such as the complete defeat of two Carthaginian field armies and the defeat of their best general. The 1st Punic War cost them some money and Sicily. The 2nd Punic War cost them their entire empire, to include their foreign independence (can't conduct war without Rome's approval). The Carthaginians couldn't even launch a defensive war against the Numidians without Rome's approval (pretext of 3rd Punic War).

- The cognomen Africanus, "Conqueror of Africa," awarded to P. Cornelius Scipio. Indicative of a victory of importance higher than just the Great Plains and seizure of Utica.

- The writings of Ennius, which specifically mention the battle of Zama.

- The utter lack of any negative material derived from either Fabius Maximus or Cato the Elder, both of whom were major political adversaries of Scipio Africanus, who would not have allowed a fake battle be used to augment Scipio Africanus' dignitas and auctoritas, thus lowering their own. If anything, Cato the Younger would have been screaming to one and all about the lies. Instead, no source from the Mid to Late Republic mentions a lie.

- Cicero's Dream of Scipio "Do you see that city, which was brought through me into subjection to the Roman people, but now renews its old hostility, and cannot remain quiet,.." How was Carthage subjugated unless brought to its knees by a major loss? Was Cicero simply duped by Polybius?

- Caesar's Commentaries, which state that it was the tradition among Romans that no victory could be achieved in Africa without a Cornelius Scipio present.

- Livy's account of Scipio Africanus using of the anniversary of a major victory against Hannibal and Carthage as a way of dodging criminal charges in a trial.

- If Scipio's sole major victory in Africa was the Great Plains, he would not have been nearly as popular as he would become.

- Just because a Greek named Polybius wrote about Zama roughly 60 years later after the battle doesn't mean everyone in Rome used Polybius as their sole source of history from that point onwards. In order for the lie to flourish, the Cornelii Scipii family would have had to manipulate all historical references following the battle to suit their purposes. This benefits only them, not Rome, certainly not other noble families that were their political opponents (read: the rest of the Senate). The direct branch of Scipio Africanus died with Scipio Aemilianus, other branches died out by the time of C. Julius Caesar. By the time of Livy, the Cornelii Scipii were either all gone or of no political power (at least never mentioned again). Who suppressed the truth so men like Livy wouldn't know it? What about Cicero and Caesar?

I'm sure there are lots of other little clues and pieces of evidence hidden in the various surviving text to suggest that a battle involving Hannibal vs. Scipio did in fact occur and that Hannibal was defeated, these are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. Did the battle occur? Most likely. Did it occur exactly as Polybius wrote? Probably not. Its history, not math. It can't be proven, just enjoyed.