03-26-2019, 06:41 AM
Michael wrote:
Interesting you saying that you love Appian for being a code-breaker, I think Appian is the key too to understanding the Zama campaign as a whole. I suspect he simply added all known sources together (those before Polybius and Polybius` own version of events) and came up with his extended Zama campaign.
That is definitely my conclusion. Take the Polybius out of Appian and truth starts to unfold.
Michael wrote:
It just seems to me that Appian has added the earlier history (or rather an amalgam of histories; the largely lost sources of Pictor, Alimentus, Quadrigarius and Coelius perhaps) and simply added these to Polybius from the point that Appian tells us that negotiations between Hannibal and Scipio led to an agreement over Octavius` captured supply ships.
Appian has not entirely followed Polybius. Appian omits anything about the battle of the Great Plains.
Michael wrote:
That supply ships episode may have been used by Polybius to excuse the resumption of war.
The two Roman supply fleets, one sent from Sardinia and one from Sicily amount to 50 warships and 300 transports for a total of 350 ships. Scipio’s fleet has 40 warships and 400 transports, for a total of 440 ships. So why does a fleet of 440 ships need resupplying by 350 ships?
Have a look at the year the ships were supposedly sent by Octavius and the year Octavius left Africa with the fleet. When an ancient historian alters history with a fabrication, this will cause a ripple effect, leading to more chronology alterations to fit the fabrication.
There is a lot of information in the various primary sources that has not come under the microscope, in relation to the Second Punic War, and the Scipio’s especially, the Iberian and African campaigns, and because of this, year after year modern historians serve up the same Polybius hogwash. However, in their defence, many of the ancient historians have followed the traditional Roman historical perspective, beginning with the republic arising from the rape of Lucretia, the decisive battle of Zama in which Hannibal is defeated. Livy is one such example.
I’m fence sitting at the moment. I have information that would indicate the corruption of the Iberian campaign of the Scipio’s in Iberia and Africa are the work of Polybius. However, other bits of information tell me that Polybius could be following a corrupt source himself, he believes is historical fact. The naval battle of Gnaeus Scipio and the Roman fleet of 35 ships is one such example. If Livy was using Polybius, the fleet reinforcement numbers would be the same, but they are not. Therefore, both Livy and Polybius are using the same source, and this source takes historical actions from another time and inserts them into another time frame when nothing is happening. Sometime he takes Roman defeats and pops them in somewhere else as a Roman victory.
In 217 BC, Gnaeus Scipio sailed to Onusa, plundered the city, and then marched to Cartagena, and ravaged the entire countryside, and even managed to set fire to the houses that adjoined the walls and gate of Cartagena. In a similar fashion to the exploits of Gnaeus Scipio, the proconsul, Valerius Laevinus, sailed to Africa, where according to Livy, the Romans “committed widespread devastation round Utica and Carthage, and that plunder was carried off under the very walls of Utica and the frontiers of Carthage.”
After capturing Cartagena in 209 BC, Scipio Africanus’ fleet is given at 35 ships, which is the same number of ships given to Gnaeus Scipio in 217 BC. Both are not historical. In 209 BC, Scipio also has a fleet of 50 ships.
The main problem with modern historians is their methodology of having favourites. For the war with Hannibal, Polybius is the favourite. This is a very restrictive approach to understanding history. By having favourites, consciously or unconsciously, the historian will protect that favourite. If they do not, the whole house of cards would come down, and with it all their theory.
The rewrite of the Second Punic War by the ancient historian I have labelled “the great fabricator” has inserted rather stupid and irrational logic into his account. Having Sempronius at the Trebbia being hot headed and rash, so he easily falls for Hannibal’s stratagem of the Numidians riding up to the Roman camp, leaving Sempronius outraged that the only course of action is to advance against Hannibal at all cost. If you stop and think about it, and if you have read other accounts of cavalry attacking camps, what the hell could the Numidian cavalry achieved....literally nothing. If they got close to the camp, they would get a barrage of missiles coming their way.
However, that is what you get in the Polybius version, which is propaganda. It could be that Polybius has done nothing more than follow his source, but changed the name of Scipio to Sempronius. Strangely, Polybius does say that the Romans either blamed Scipio and his rashness for the defeat or the betrayal of the Celts. So what do those non favourite ancient authors have to say, who have unfairly been judged as unreliable all because they have not followed the propaganda version of events. Well Appian has Publius Scipio the Elder, not wounded at the Ticinus as Polybius claims, but wounded at the Trebbia while trying to stop his men from fleeing. By taking an unbiased approach to the non favourite ancient authors, a better picture can be constructed about the Trebbia.
Publius Scipio fled the Ticinus because his army was greatly outnumbered by Hannibal’s. Publius Scipio sent for help, something Polybius does not admit, yet others do. The Roman senate ordered Sempronius in Sicily to march to the Po. Sempronius allocates parts of his army to the defence of Sicily, knowing full well that the Roman senate will be providing replacement troops for him in Italy. Therefore, a large part of Sempronius army did not march to Ariminum. Also what they are doing, as found in the Roman army numbers for the Trebbia, is converting his fleet consular army to a land consular army. His new army assembles at Ariminum and then marches to Placentia. Appian has Scipio army taking refuge in Placentia, with Hannibal having a few attempts to take the place. Sempronius marches from Ariminum to Placentia, and if you look at a map, there is no way Hannibal can prevent a junction between the two Roman armies. To do so, if Hannibal marched past Placentia to engage Sempronius, Scipio could follow in his rear. Once at Placentia, Sempronius encamps south of Placentia, and on the east side of the Trebbia.
So how does Hannibal get the Romans to attack him? First he must have something they want, and that is Clastidium, which was the Roman granary. Now turning to another non favourite ancient author and another of the so called “unreliable,” Nepos mentions that Publius Scipio fought Hannibal for the possession of Clastidium. Therefore, the battle of the Trebbia is about retaking Clastidium. I have also dismissed the Roman freezing from the cold due to crossing the Trebbia. Nothing is mention of the Numidian cavalry freezing, especially as they had crossed the Trebbia twice. All Hannibal’s victories from the Trebbia to Cannae, have the weather on his side, which is again, propaganda to find another reason as to why the Romans lost.
So after waffling on, at this moment in time, I think Polybius employs a very corrupt source, and that Polybius has changed names to protect the Scipio family. However, when it comes to the brutal character assassination of Gaius Flaminius I believe the source is Fabius Pictor. When it comes to those accounts of the cruelty of Hannibal, I believe the source is Alimentus.
Interesting you saying that you love Appian for being a code-breaker, I think Appian is the key too to understanding the Zama campaign as a whole. I suspect he simply added all known sources together (those before Polybius and Polybius` own version of events) and came up with his extended Zama campaign.
That is definitely my conclusion. Take the Polybius out of Appian and truth starts to unfold.
Michael wrote:
It just seems to me that Appian has added the earlier history (or rather an amalgam of histories; the largely lost sources of Pictor, Alimentus, Quadrigarius and Coelius perhaps) and simply added these to Polybius from the point that Appian tells us that negotiations between Hannibal and Scipio led to an agreement over Octavius` captured supply ships.
Appian has not entirely followed Polybius. Appian omits anything about the battle of the Great Plains.
Michael wrote:
That supply ships episode may have been used by Polybius to excuse the resumption of war.
The two Roman supply fleets, one sent from Sardinia and one from Sicily amount to 50 warships and 300 transports for a total of 350 ships. Scipio’s fleet has 40 warships and 400 transports, for a total of 440 ships. So why does a fleet of 440 ships need resupplying by 350 ships?
Have a look at the year the ships were supposedly sent by Octavius and the year Octavius left Africa with the fleet. When an ancient historian alters history with a fabrication, this will cause a ripple effect, leading to more chronology alterations to fit the fabrication.
There is a lot of information in the various primary sources that has not come under the microscope, in relation to the Second Punic War, and the Scipio’s especially, the Iberian and African campaigns, and because of this, year after year modern historians serve up the same Polybius hogwash. However, in their defence, many of the ancient historians have followed the traditional Roman historical perspective, beginning with the republic arising from the rape of Lucretia, the decisive battle of Zama in which Hannibal is defeated. Livy is one such example.
I’m fence sitting at the moment. I have information that would indicate the corruption of the Iberian campaign of the Scipio’s in Iberia and Africa are the work of Polybius. However, other bits of information tell me that Polybius could be following a corrupt source himself, he believes is historical fact. The naval battle of Gnaeus Scipio and the Roman fleet of 35 ships is one such example. If Livy was using Polybius, the fleet reinforcement numbers would be the same, but they are not. Therefore, both Livy and Polybius are using the same source, and this source takes historical actions from another time and inserts them into another time frame when nothing is happening. Sometime he takes Roman defeats and pops them in somewhere else as a Roman victory.
In 217 BC, Gnaeus Scipio sailed to Onusa, plundered the city, and then marched to Cartagena, and ravaged the entire countryside, and even managed to set fire to the houses that adjoined the walls and gate of Cartagena. In a similar fashion to the exploits of Gnaeus Scipio, the proconsul, Valerius Laevinus, sailed to Africa, where according to Livy, the Romans “committed widespread devastation round Utica and Carthage, and that plunder was carried off under the very walls of Utica and the frontiers of Carthage.”
After capturing Cartagena in 209 BC, Scipio Africanus’ fleet is given at 35 ships, which is the same number of ships given to Gnaeus Scipio in 217 BC. Both are not historical. In 209 BC, Scipio also has a fleet of 50 ships.
The main problem with modern historians is their methodology of having favourites. For the war with Hannibal, Polybius is the favourite. This is a very restrictive approach to understanding history. By having favourites, consciously or unconsciously, the historian will protect that favourite. If they do not, the whole house of cards would come down, and with it all their theory.
The rewrite of the Second Punic War by the ancient historian I have labelled “the great fabricator” has inserted rather stupid and irrational logic into his account. Having Sempronius at the Trebbia being hot headed and rash, so he easily falls for Hannibal’s stratagem of the Numidians riding up to the Roman camp, leaving Sempronius outraged that the only course of action is to advance against Hannibal at all cost. If you stop and think about it, and if you have read other accounts of cavalry attacking camps, what the hell could the Numidian cavalry achieved....literally nothing. If they got close to the camp, they would get a barrage of missiles coming their way.
However, that is what you get in the Polybius version, which is propaganda. It could be that Polybius has done nothing more than follow his source, but changed the name of Scipio to Sempronius. Strangely, Polybius does say that the Romans either blamed Scipio and his rashness for the defeat or the betrayal of the Celts. So what do those non favourite ancient authors have to say, who have unfairly been judged as unreliable all because they have not followed the propaganda version of events. Well Appian has Publius Scipio the Elder, not wounded at the Ticinus as Polybius claims, but wounded at the Trebbia while trying to stop his men from fleeing. By taking an unbiased approach to the non favourite ancient authors, a better picture can be constructed about the Trebbia.
Publius Scipio fled the Ticinus because his army was greatly outnumbered by Hannibal’s. Publius Scipio sent for help, something Polybius does not admit, yet others do. The Roman senate ordered Sempronius in Sicily to march to the Po. Sempronius allocates parts of his army to the defence of Sicily, knowing full well that the Roman senate will be providing replacement troops for him in Italy. Therefore, a large part of Sempronius army did not march to Ariminum. Also what they are doing, as found in the Roman army numbers for the Trebbia, is converting his fleet consular army to a land consular army. His new army assembles at Ariminum and then marches to Placentia. Appian has Scipio army taking refuge in Placentia, with Hannibal having a few attempts to take the place. Sempronius marches from Ariminum to Placentia, and if you look at a map, there is no way Hannibal can prevent a junction between the two Roman armies. To do so, if Hannibal marched past Placentia to engage Sempronius, Scipio could follow in his rear. Once at Placentia, Sempronius encamps south of Placentia, and on the east side of the Trebbia.
So how does Hannibal get the Romans to attack him? First he must have something they want, and that is Clastidium, which was the Roman granary. Now turning to another non favourite ancient author and another of the so called “unreliable,” Nepos mentions that Publius Scipio fought Hannibal for the possession of Clastidium. Therefore, the battle of the Trebbia is about retaking Clastidium. I have also dismissed the Roman freezing from the cold due to crossing the Trebbia. Nothing is mention of the Numidian cavalry freezing, especially as they had crossed the Trebbia twice. All Hannibal’s victories from the Trebbia to Cannae, have the weather on his side, which is again, propaganda to find another reason as to why the Romans lost.
So after waffling on, at this moment in time, I think Polybius employs a very corrupt source, and that Polybius has changed names to protect the Scipio family. However, when it comes to the brutal character assassination of Gaius Flaminius I believe the source is Fabius Pictor. When it comes to those accounts of the cruelty of Hannibal, I believe the source is Alimentus.
