Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio
#4
Michael wrote:

....but how does one identify the Pictor in Livy and Polybius - is it the details of the battle losses, prisoners, captured standards, etc, or is it in the manner of identifying Pictor`s style in descriptions or expressions used?
 
A lot has happened since I wrote the above. Quite a lot, and a new player has revealed himself, and that is Alimentus, who also wrote on the Second Punic War and claimed to have personally spoken to Hannibal when he was a prisoner of the Carthaginians. Polybius has used Alimentus’ numbers for Hannibal’s army in 219 BC, but has taken Alimentus’ 80,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry has being 90,000 infantry, and then made his causality calculations from that point. Therefore, mistake on mistake. Using Alimentus’ numbers, Hannibal arrives in Italy with 26,000 infantry and 4,000 cavalry. Polybius has 20,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry.
 
Michael wrote:
Livy seems to give more us more details than Polybius,
 
I have found that Livy relies on Polybius for the Second Punic War. For example, in Polybius’ account, Publius Scipio the Elder returns to Iberia in 217 BC with 20 ships. Livy allocates Publius Scipio the Elder 30 ships and 8,000 men, a difference of 10 ships. Now 8,000 men divided by 30 ships would allocate each ship 2666 point 666 men per ship. That approach is wrong. What Livy did, was take the correct total number of men belonging to his 30 ships, and subtracted it from Polybius’ grand total of 55 ships, with 35 ships belonging to Gnaeus Scipio. In this manner, Livy ends up with 8,000 men. Polybius’ 20 ships should be 30 ships. After researching all the Roman fleet numbers for the Second Punic War, I have a dozen examples of the fleets missing 10 ships, which tell me the source is Polybius.
 
Many of the fleet numbers given by Livy follow this trend. Many examples of the fleet movements during the Second Punic War have been confused between what ships stayed and what ships were transferred somewhere else.
 
In 217 BC, Polybius reports that Gnaeus Scipio sailed from Tarraco with 35 ships and defeated a Carthaginian fleet of 40 ships. The 35 ships work out to be the number of ships being sent back to Italy by Gnaeus Scipio. In 208 BC, Livy reports that Publius Scipio (proconsul) sent from Iberia to Sardinia a fleet of 50 ships for the praetor C. Aurunculeius. That is the number of ships that remained with Publius Scipio.
 
For the invasion of Africa, Livy has Publius Scipio Africanus leave Italy with 30 warships and 7,000 men. That is wrong. The 7,000 men are those that Africanus selected in Sicily, of which 3,000 were taken from the Cannae and Herdonea exiles. Africanus crossed to Italy with 16,000 men, 30 ships and 400 transports.
 
For the battle of Zama, Appian gives Africanus infantry at 23,000 infantry. Appian also mentions that the Roman army had 16,000 infantry and 1600 cavalry. Now by taking Appian’s 23,000 infantry and subtracting Appian’s other figure of 16,000 infantry, the result is 7,000 infantry. Various ancient historians are taking information concerning the army numbers from different time frames. The problem is Livy or his source has confused the chronology, which happens on more than one occasion during Africanus’ African campaign. The figure of 16,000 infantry and 1,600 cavalry is Polybius.
 
For example, Livy has Publius Scipio Africanus leave Sicily with a fleet of 40 warships and about 400 transports. So in Sicily, Publius Scipio Africanus has gained 10 ships. Appian claims Africanus had 10 ships in Italy, so here is another example of chronology confusion. Appian also gives Africanus’ fleet 52 warships, which is an increase of 12 ships compared to Livy. The various figures given for the African campaign, have been rounded, but are very accurate, so the infantry and cavalry numbers combined with the fleet and the fleet’s organisational structure, work out that while in Sicily, 12 ships were added to Africanus’ fleet, bringing the total from 30 to 42, which has been rounded by Livy or his source to 40 ships. The two additional ships are the command ships, with one being Scipio’s flagship. Many of the numbers given for the Roman fleet omit the command ships, so this is a common practice. Therefore, Appian sees the total of 40 warships in one source, and 12 ships in another, and adds them to get 52 ships. I love Appian, he is my mathematical code breaker.
 
Michael wrote:
The details in Livy seem perhaps to be closer to original records kept in Rome and the after action reports received by Rome`s city Quaestor which would have been easily accessed by Pictor?
 
At present I am backing off from pointing fingers at who is to blame. I have now caught Polybius out as for literally lying. There is also another racket going on relating to the Second Punic War and that is to employ Roman army numbers for Carthaginian army numbers.
 
Michael wrote:
Livy seems to give more us more details than Polybius, who I suspect preferred to rely upon Laelius` vague battle statistics for Zama for instance:
 
To find the truth about whether the battle of Zama is historical or fabrication, one has to research the whole African campaign by every ancient historian. Only then will you find the truth. Unfortunately, this has not been undertaken by modern historian, preferring to take the easy road and follow Polybius. Unfortunately, Polybius is not being as honest as he would like us to believe.
 
People may be baffled as to how I can be certain of what I write, or believe I must be pulling it from my arse. It has come about from years of studying the Roman army and learning and understanding their military doctrines. It also comes from understanding and identifying the methodology of the various ancient historians.
 
Last year, I thought it was fine to show the subunits of the various legions, armies and fleets. However, I decided to put anything to the test by deploying it for battle. So those 5,000 men sent by Stilicho in 398 AD to suppress a revolt must be able to be arrayed for battle so that all the subunits conform to all the other data in the primary sources and can be arrayed with an equal depth in every unit.
 
Doing this with the Roman fleet after the First Punic War caused some small problems. During the First Punic War, Polybius mentions the legion organisation and the squadron organisation for a Roman fleet. However, after the First Punic War the Romans favoured the squadron organisation. What I found, and it was subtle, was the Roman fleet organisation did not follow the same infantry and cavalry numbers as the land armies. Knowing this unlocked the door to understanding more of the data concerning fleet numbers. Some ancient historians were not aware of this and tried to bring the fleet organisation back to the land organisation and made a pigs breakfast of the whole affair. One such example is Livy’s breakdown of the Roman levy of 219 BC. Both Sempronius and Scipio the Elder are being transported by fleets, so there numbers have been based on the fleet organisation. Livy or his source, in trying to adjust back to the land organisation, and this mathematical carving up ends in Scipio having 1,600 allied cavalry, Sempronius with 1,800 allied cavalry, and Manlius with 1,000 allied cavalry.
 
Other data concerning the number of cavalry and infantry for a fleet are spot on, in fact more so than the mistakes. The Romans are very methodical and formalistic, in fact chronically formalistic, and this makes it possible to understand their military machinations.
 
 
 
 
 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio - by Steven James - 03-24-2019, 08:03 AM

Forum Jump: