03-28-2019, 06:13 AM
Michael wrote:
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?
Appian’s account of Utica list all the numbers of Carthaginians killed or captured from various skirmishes, plus slave numbers leading up to and including the battle of Utica. Polybius was using the same source as Appian, but Polybius took all the figures of dead and captured plus Carthaginian slaves and added them all up and then claimed the total of all these Carthaginians killed, captured and slaves, was the size of the Carthaginian army at Utica. So Polybius is fraudulent.
Michael wrote:
Did I miss something also when you said: "...9,700 cavalry. Subtract Livy’s 5,000 captured you end up with 2,700 horses."?
Ooops, forget that. I must have referred back to my book and not my posting. In my postings, I edit proportions of the material so as to not let the cat out of the bag so to speak.
Michael wrote:
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.
My opinion is based on my research was the Romans kept good accounts of their losses, especially when fighting in Italy.
Michael wrote:
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?
For the campaign of 464 BC, Livy writes that Valerius Antias reported the number of men killed in the army of the consul Spurius Furius was 5,800 men. Dionysius has 1,000 men reported killed. Add both figures together and the 6,800 men is the actual number of infantry in a consular army for this period. Valerius Antias has mistaken those that survived for those that were killed. This is another reference showing my tribal system is 100 percent accurate. It’s examples like this that just blow me away.
Michael wrote:
When Antias comes up with the figures for the preliminary battle between Hannibal and Scipio, they seem to report a significant victory.
It’s a borrowed figure, so not historical. Appian 25,000 killed and 8,500 captured, and Orosius 20500 lost are all derivatives from the one source.
Michael wrote:
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.
I put as much credence on Polybius’ one on one interview with Laelius as I do on Polybius finding of Hannibal’s sea tablet detailing the size of Hannibal’s army. Polybius has worked out most of his sources are telling furphies, so he thought, then so can I.
When describing Scipio’s victory at Utica, Polybius writes “So it is not possible to find any other disaster which even if exaggerated could be compared with this, so much did it exceed in horror all previous events. Therefore of all the brilliant exploits performed by Scipio this (Utica) seems to me the most splendid and most adventurous...
So Polybius does not believe Zama was the be and end all of Scipio’s career. At this point, this is the end of Polybius’ historical narrative for the African campaign. Something has happened at this point, because the deliberate fabrication now begins. Could someone have inserted content to alter Polybius’ narrative at a later date?
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?
Appian’s account of Utica list all the numbers of Carthaginians killed or captured from various skirmishes, plus slave numbers leading up to and including the battle of Utica. Polybius was using the same source as Appian, but Polybius took all the figures of dead and captured plus Carthaginian slaves and added them all up and then claimed the total of all these Carthaginians killed, captured and slaves, was the size of the Carthaginian army at Utica. So Polybius is fraudulent.
Michael wrote:
Did I miss something also when you said: "...9,700 cavalry. Subtract Livy’s 5,000 captured you end up with 2,700 horses."?
Ooops, forget that. I must have referred back to my book and not my posting. In my postings, I edit proportions of the material so as to not let the cat out of the bag so to speak.
Michael wrote:
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.
My opinion is based on my research was the Romans kept good accounts of their losses, especially when fighting in Italy.
Michael wrote:
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?
For the campaign of 464 BC, Livy writes that Valerius Antias reported the number of men killed in the army of the consul Spurius Furius was 5,800 men. Dionysius has 1,000 men reported killed. Add both figures together and the 6,800 men is the actual number of infantry in a consular army for this period. Valerius Antias has mistaken those that survived for those that were killed. This is another reference showing my tribal system is 100 percent accurate. It’s examples like this that just blow me away.
Michael wrote:
When Antias comes up with the figures for the preliminary battle between Hannibal and Scipio, they seem to report a significant victory.
It’s a borrowed figure, so not historical. Appian 25,000 killed and 8,500 captured, and Orosius 20500 lost are all derivatives from the one source.
Michael wrote:
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.
I put as much credence on Polybius’ one on one interview with Laelius as I do on Polybius finding of Hannibal’s sea tablet detailing the size of Hannibal’s army. Polybius has worked out most of his sources are telling furphies, so he thought, then so can I.
When describing Scipio’s victory at Utica, Polybius writes “So it is not possible to find any other disaster which even if exaggerated could be compared with this, so much did it exceed in horror all previous events. Therefore of all the brilliant exploits performed by Scipio this (Utica) seems to me the most splendid and most adventurous...
So Polybius does not believe Zama was the be and end all of Scipio’s career. At this point, this is the end of Polybius’ historical narrative for the African campaign. Something has happened at this point, because the deliberate fabrication now begins. Could someone have inserted content to alter Polybius’ narrative at a later date?
