03-27-2019, 04:02 PM
Yes, interrupt by all means Steven, I don`t mind, but didn`t you just say that Appian`s are a product of an equation using Polybius` figures? If they are derived from Polybius, why then shouldn`t we question them?
Did I miss something also when you said: "...9,700 cavalry. Subtract Livy’s 5,000 captured you end up with 2,700 horses."?
Not sure about the maths here but the "captured" were probably not all cavalry anyhow.
As for casualty estimation, I`m not entirely sure how they were arrived at either* and official figures that were reported back to Rome might not necessarily have been truthful.
*The more modern method of casualty estimation was to count the numbers of dead within a square area and then multiply up to the area of the battlefield, but when this began I`m not certain.
Yes, I thought the details may have been derived from Antias - it is assumed that Livy used Antias quite frequently - but was Antias the only Roman historian/annalist to check the public records?
When Antias comes up with the figures for the preliminary battle between Hannibal and Scipio, they seem to report a significant victory. Exactly how these figures were estimated may not have been as important as their meeting the requirements for a triumph in Rome - namely, more than 5,000 enemy killed.
I`m saying that the original source for Antias may have been Gaius Laelius` report with the first news of victory in Rome in perhaps in late October to early November 202. "Zama" of course, would not have been mentioned at the time; that battle takes shape and grows in the telling, over the years to come. Anyhow, Antias has used two reports/accounts of the same battle.
Did I miss something also when you said: "...9,700 cavalry. Subtract Livy’s 5,000 captured you end up with 2,700 horses."?
Not sure about the maths here but the "captured" were probably not all cavalry anyhow.
As for casualty estimation, I`m not entirely sure how they were arrived at either* and official figures that were reported back to Rome might not necessarily have been truthful.
*The more modern method of casualty estimation was to count the numbers of dead within a square area and then multiply up to the area of the battlefield, but when this began I`m not certain.
Yes, I thought the details may have been derived from Antias - it is assumed that Livy used Antias quite frequently - but was Antias the only Roman historian/annalist to check the public records?
When Antias comes up with the figures for the preliminary battle between Hannibal and Scipio, they seem to report a significant victory. Exactly how these figures were estimated may not have been as important as their meeting the requirements for a triumph in Rome - namely, more than 5,000 enemy killed.
I`m saying that the original source for Antias may have been Gaius Laelius` report with the first news of victory in Rome in perhaps in late October to early November 202. "Zama" of course, would not have been mentioned at the time; that battle takes shape and grows in the telling, over the years to come. Anyhow, Antias has used two reports/accounts of the same battle.
