04-01-2019, 06:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-01-2019, 07:16 PM by Michael Collins.)
The Rylands III 491 Papyrus? Yes, it does cast even more doubt on Polybius reliability.
Those supply ships were from Hadrumetum instead?... possible I guess. I think I missed that. Interesting, did Polybius get this from a Carthaginian source I wonder? And Appian finds himself repeating Polybius in book 7.34.!
I checked the agricultural produce of present-day Tunisa and I guess that Hannibal`s troops may have been conscripted to pick fruit in January/February of 202 and/or 201 BC. Right, but the first round of negotiations failed in 203 anyhow - that naughty Polybius again !
Last night, thinking on it some more, I wondered if Appian did not add one version of the campaign to another, but that there already existed a history that included the cavalry battle (Zama 1.0 if you like) and skirmishes which was followed by a major land battle (and this would be Polybius` Zama 2.0). Just checking and evaluating my ideas to date really. This perhaps made it easier for Antias to misinterpret it as two major land battles. Is this why Antias` stats for his preliminary battle and Appian`s figures for Zama appear to be related? Did Appian use Antias` figures? And if so, where did Antias get them from?
Today, I looked at Livy with reference to other historians and to see where they provided stats that conflicted - it does seem like either Quintus Fabius Pictor or Lucius Cincius Alimentus may be the source for Appian`s (Antias`) Zama 2.0
But the Carthaginian sources necessary to tell Appian`s story (the details about camps, terrain, pursuits, cavalry battles and skirmishes, supply trains, and negotiations), perhaps they came via Coelius Antipater? And so, perhaps Appian`s stats come from Coelius too?
Those supply ships were from Hadrumetum instead?... possible I guess. I think I missed that. Interesting, did Polybius get this from a Carthaginian source I wonder? And Appian finds himself repeating Polybius in book 7.34.!
I checked the agricultural produce of present-day Tunisa and I guess that Hannibal`s troops may have been conscripted to pick fruit in January/February of 202 and/or 201 BC. Right, but the first round of negotiations failed in 203 anyhow - that naughty Polybius again !
Last night, thinking on it some more, I wondered if Appian did not add one version of the campaign to another, but that there already existed a history that included the cavalry battle (Zama 1.0 if you like) and skirmishes which was followed by a major land battle (and this would be Polybius` Zama 2.0). Just checking and evaluating my ideas to date really. This perhaps made it easier for Antias to misinterpret it as two major land battles. Is this why Antias` stats for his preliminary battle and Appian`s figures for Zama appear to be related? Did Appian use Antias` figures? And if so, where did Antias get them from?
Today, I looked at Livy with reference to other historians and to see where they provided stats that conflicted - it does seem like either Quintus Fabius Pictor or Lucius Cincius Alimentus may be the source for Appian`s (Antias`) Zama 2.0
But the Carthaginian sources necessary to tell Appian`s story (the details about camps, terrain, pursuits, cavalry battles and skirmishes, supply trains, and negotiations), perhaps they came via Coelius Antipater? And so, perhaps Appian`s stats come from Coelius too?
