01-11-2019, 03:12 AM
Roberti wrote:
Hello, I have a question about a rather obscure episode of the Second Punic War. In book 29 of his Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Livy tells us about Scipio's arrival in Africa. In particular, soon after disembarking: "Scipio...captured a fairly rich Carthaginian city. What's odd is that he doesn't give a name for it.
I’ve been making an intensive study of the Second Punic War, which focuses on the many contradictionary events that took place. These patterns of contradictions go back to the beginning of the republic. For example, Brutus the first consul, has his two sons flogged and beheaded for trying to overthrow the new republic and restore Tarquinius Superbus, the last king of Rome. Another source has Tarquinius Superbus have his sons flogged and beheaded for trying to overthrow him.
I have learnt that where there is contradiction it means a mistake has been made or it is a fabrication. All the contradictions I have been researching all follow a similar pattern. The time frame when the fabrications began, and when they ended points towards the source being Fabius Pictor. By the time of the Second Punic War, these fabrications have intensified, which has proven to me that much of what we understand about the Second Punic War has been bastardised to the point of being so distorted that the truth has most likely being lost in the process. Many of the battles in the Iberian campaign in the Second Punic War are disguised doublets. Unfortunately, Polybius and Livy have employed the writings of Fabius Pictor far more often than most people think. Livy has referred to Fabius Pictor on far more occasions than Polybius and has tried to blend such events with Polybius’ writings. Fabius Pictor was too emotional to be an objective historian. He has allowed his emotions to drive his writings, creating fictional Carthaginian defeats to appease his emotional hatred of them, and most importantly to cover up any Roman disgrace.
The event regarding the death of the consul is one such clear example. Livy implies that Fabius Pictor’s numbers were good, and the list of the number of men in Marcellus’ party when he was ambushed, is, from my research extremely accurate. However, Marcellus’ escort is made up of one body of Latins and the rest Etruscans, who fled. This is a blatant lie. I have irrefutable evidence, both data and text that proves all Roman consul’s had Romans as bodyguard cavalry.
Fabius Pictor, having lived through the Second Punic War in the role of a senator, knew he could not deny the Romans were defeated at Cannae, but he could water down some internal events that happened during the battle. Fabius Pictor also shows favouritism with some of the consuls over others, and this is why there are contradictions in who was in command when. He seems to be protecting the reputation of friends in the senate, who had been defeated, especially defeated in a disgraceful manner, like having your camp captured by Hannibal’s forces.
Fabius Pictor is a creature of habit, and when he wants to disguise something, his patterns always works in the same manner. One such pattern, is when nothing happens between the Romans and the Carthaginians during the Second Punic War, Fabius Pictor will make something happen by taking an historical event, reversing it and then inserting it in that quite non combat activity period.
It seems it was very important to Fabius Pictor, that the first engagement between Hannibal and the Romans should be a Roman victory. The cavalry incident at the Rhone, which resulted in a Roman victory, was one of Fabius Pictor’s fabrications. It actually belongs to the Ticinus, and events at the Ticinus actually belong to the Trebbia. This is how Fabius Pictor works, take a Roman defeat and later make it into a Carthaginian defeat. More importantly, take a disgraceful Roman event in a battle, and then turn it into a Carthaginian disgrace in another invented battle, in which the Romans win. So for example, those 10,000 brave Romans at the Trebbia, that heroically broke through the Carthaginian lines and escaped to Placentia, what if the real story was they broke and fled before first contact? Fabius Pictor could not live with that, so a remedy had to be found. But where did Fabius Pictor get the idea of 10,000 men breaking through the Carthaginian line, oh yes, those 10,000 Romans that broke through the Carthaginian lines at the Trasimene. You cannot accuse Fabius Pictor of lying can you? After all, some of those men were at the Trebbia.
So, to reply to your question, if Scipio landed in Africa and did nothing because he had to consolidate his position, allow his men and horse to get over being seasick, such inactivity cannot be tolerated by Fabius Pictor, so he borrows other historical events and inserts them where he wants then. Now we have Scipio, instead of sitting on his hands, doing glorious deeds. Maybe Fabius Pictor was some frustrated person who had been denied a military command during the Second Punic War, and released his frustration in his writings. If the city has no name, then you can be assured the event did not happen. Had the incident been true, the name of the city would have been given.
Hello, I have a question about a rather obscure episode of the Second Punic War. In book 29 of his Ab Urbe Condita Libri, Livy tells us about Scipio's arrival in Africa. In particular, soon after disembarking: "Scipio...captured a fairly rich Carthaginian city. What's odd is that he doesn't give a name for it.
I’ve been making an intensive study of the Second Punic War, which focuses on the many contradictionary events that took place. These patterns of contradictions go back to the beginning of the republic. For example, Brutus the first consul, has his two sons flogged and beheaded for trying to overthrow the new republic and restore Tarquinius Superbus, the last king of Rome. Another source has Tarquinius Superbus have his sons flogged and beheaded for trying to overthrow him.
I have learnt that where there is contradiction it means a mistake has been made or it is a fabrication. All the contradictions I have been researching all follow a similar pattern. The time frame when the fabrications began, and when they ended points towards the source being Fabius Pictor. By the time of the Second Punic War, these fabrications have intensified, which has proven to me that much of what we understand about the Second Punic War has been bastardised to the point of being so distorted that the truth has most likely being lost in the process. Many of the battles in the Iberian campaign in the Second Punic War are disguised doublets. Unfortunately, Polybius and Livy have employed the writings of Fabius Pictor far more often than most people think. Livy has referred to Fabius Pictor on far more occasions than Polybius and has tried to blend such events with Polybius’ writings. Fabius Pictor was too emotional to be an objective historian. He has allowed his emotions to drive his writings, creating fictional Carthaginian defeats to appease his emotional hatred of them, and most importantly to cover up any Roman disgrace.
The event regarding the death of the consul is one such clear example. Livy implies that Fabius Pictor’s numbers were good, and the list of the number of men in Marcellus’ party when he was ambushed, is, from my research extremely accurate. However, Marcellus’ escort is made up of one body of Latins and the rest Etruscans, who fled. This is a blatant lie. I have irrefutable evidence, both data and text that proves all Roman consul’s had Romans as bodyguard cavalry.
Fabius Pictor, having lived through the Second Punic War in the role of a senator, knew he could not deny the Romans were defeated at Cannae, but he could water down some internal events that happened during the battle. Fabius Pictor also shows favouritism with some of the consuls over others, and this is why there are contradictions in who was in command when. He seems to be protecting the reputation of friends in the senate, who had been defeated, especially defeated in a disgraceful manner, like having your camp captured by Hannibal’s forces.
Fabius Pictor is a creature of habit, and when he wants to disguise something, his patterns always works in the same manner. One such pattern, is when nothing happens between the Romans and the Carthaginians during the Second Punic War, Fabius Pictor will make something happen by taking an historical event, reversing it and then inserting it in that quite non combat activity period.
It seems it was very important to Fabius Pictor, that the first engagement between Hannibal and the Romans should be a Roman victory. The cavalry incident at the Rhone, which resulted in a Roman victory, was one of Fabius Pictor’s fabrications. It actually belongs to the Ticinus, and events at the Ticinus actually belong to the Trebbia. This is how Fabius Pictor works, take a Roman defeat and later make it into a Carthaginian defeat. More importantly, take a disgraceful Roman event in a battle, and then turn it into a Carthaginian disgrace in another invented battle, in which the Romans win. So for example, those 10,000 brave Romans at the Trebbia, that heroically broke through the Carthaginian lines and escaped to Placentia, what if the real story was they broke and fled before first contact? Fabius Pictor could not live with that, so a remedy had to be found. But where did Fabius Pictor get the idea of 10,000 men breaking through the Carthaginian line, oh yes, those 10,000 Romans that broke through the Carthaginian lines at the Trasimene. You cannot accuse Fabius Pictor of lying can you? After all, some of those men were at the Trebbia.
So, to reply to your question, if Scipio landed in Africa and did nothing because he had to consolidate his position, allow his men and horse to get over being seasick, such inactivity cannot be tolerated by Fabius Pictor, so he borrows other historical events and inserts them where he wants then. Now we have Scipio, instead of sitting on his hands, doing glorious deeds. Maybe Fabius Pictor was some frustrated person who had been denied a military command during the Second Punic War, and released his frustration in his writings. If the city has no name, then you can be assured the event did not happen. Had the incident been true, the name of the city would have been given.
