Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio
#20
Michael wrote:

The Rylands III 491 Papyrus? Yes, it does cast even more doubt on Polybius reliability
 
Yes, sorry I should have provided the papyrus reference.
 
Michael wrote:
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.!
 
Unfortunately, Appian also weaves into his narrative Polybius’ account and another account that follows historical fact. The ships mentioned in III 491 I believe are Carthaginian. The Carthaginian ships being ship wrecked are then falsified as being Roman, so as to provide “the great fabricator” his excuse to restart hostilities and the invention of Zama 2, as you call it. This has been done to get the climax for the Second Punic War. Zama 2 is the Roman version of Cannae. What goes hand in hand with the fabricated stories is a source that does not understand Roman military command structures. It is something even modern historians have not grasped, so they are unaware when there is a problem in the primary sources. The Romans are very strict about what a rank is entitled to command, and it is law. So when I see a Roman commander of a specific rank commanding a specific body of troops, I know straight away there is a problem or fabrication. Here is an example as provided by Livy (42 27):
 
“The praetor C. Licinius Crassus was instructed to select out of the old quinqueremes laid up in the dockyards in Rome all that could be made use of, and to repair and fit out fifty vessels. If he was unable to make up that number he was to write to his colleague, C. Memmius, commanding in Sicily, and direct him to refit and get ready for service the ships which were in Sicilian waters, so that they could be sent as soon as possible to Brundisium. C. Licinius Crassus was to enlist crews for twenty-five ships from Roman citizens of the freedman class, and Cn. Sicinius was to requisition the same number from the allies, and also obtain from them a force of 8000 infantry and 500 cavalry. A. Atilius Serranus, who had been praetor the year before, was selected to take over these soldiers at Brundisium and convey them to Macedonia. In order that Cn. Sicinius Crassus might have an army ready to sail, C. Licinius Crassus was authorised by the senate to write to the consul C. Popilius, requesting him to issue orders for the second legion, most of whom had seen service in Liguria, and an allied contingent of 4000 infantry and 200 cavalry, to be at Brundisium by February 13. With this fleet and army Cn. Sicinius was ordered to hold the province of Macedonia until his successor arrived, his command being extended for a year. Thirty-eight quinqueremes were launched from the naval arsenal, and L. Porcius Licinius was placed in command to take them to Brundisium; twelve were sent from Sicily.”
 
Could it be that the 50 ships mentioned at the beginning also include the crews for 25 ships made up of Roman citizens, or are we looking at a total of 75 ships? Could also, the 38 ships launched from the naval arsenal and the 12 ships from Sicily, for a total of 50 ships, be the same 50 ships Livy mentions at the beginning of the paragraph? After all, Livy does mention that Crassus was permitted to obtain ships from Sicily, which could be the 12 ships sent from Sicily. Or is Livy referring to 125 ships in total? Knowing how the Roman command structure works reveals what is going on, and which of those fleet numbers are rounded.
 
Michael wrote:
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. 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?
 
You could go insane trying to work this out. To answer those questions, requires studying all the data in the primary sources going back to the republic. Only then will the mathematical patterns of the various ancient historians show themselves.
 
Livy claims Fabius Pictor’s numbers are good, and I will back Livy on this. Minutely studying the data in the primary sources shows there are some extremely accurate numbers. They become reference points for all other data to be compared to. Livy’s list of the troops and other dignitaries killed with the consul Marcellus are accurate. It has to be an official record. Livy writes that the cavalry with Marcellus and the other consul were part Latin but mostly Etruscan. Now here is a cover up, and I believe the culprit to be Fabius Pictor, who is hiding the truth. All my research shows that a consul’s bodyguard are selected from the Roman cavalry. They cannot be anything other than Roman for the Second Punic War. This tradition goes back to the beginning of the republic. Because the Roman cavalry protecting the consuls had fled, I believe Fabius Pictor wanted to cover up this embarrassment, so called them Etruscan and Latin. Therefore, I don’t believe the source of the major fabricated events could be Fabius Pictor, who is criticised by other ancient historians, but he has never been accused of fabricating stories. And I don’t believe it could be Alimentus. My reason for this is because whoever makes these extraordinary fabrications is very vague about the Roman military. The study into the Roman fleet for the First and Second Punic Wars proves this beyond doubt. Alimentus was a praetor and propraetor, and was allocated a fleet, so he would know about the minute details of the Roman fleet. Fabius served during the 225 BC campaign against the Celts, so would also know Roman military practices. Many of these dodgy Roman fleet numbers can be found in Livy’s account of the Third Macedonian War. So did Fabius Pictor and Alimentus live that long?
 
Michael wrote:
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!
 
Polybius is definitely following the Roman propaganda viewpoint.
 
Michael wrote:
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).
 
I would investigate this line of thought further. As I already said, Appian is trying to accommodate Polybius with the historical account. It is a matter of Appian not knowing the difference.
 
Michael wrote:
Did Appian use Antias` figures? And if so, where did Antias get them from?
 
Oh I could answer that right away, but will keep it in the book, which is about three volumes now. Some years back I had no reason to doubt Zama 2 as being a fabrication. When I researched Scipio’s army and fleet numbers, I discovered Scipio was using a specialist legion size that had not been used for sometime in the field. All the data for Scipio’s infantry, cavalry and fleet are mana from heaven. When following Polybius about the princeps and triarii forming on the wings of the hastati at Zama 2, I could not accept this as the frontage was too great. So I placed the triarii behind the princeps. The frontage was still too extreme. The battleline was too dangerous, and if it was broken in one part, the whole battleline would be broken. The weakness would be the hastati who had done most of the fighting. It was when I found out how Appian’s army numbers were constructed, which included the reference to Hannibal’s army having about 50,000 men, then I knew the whole story was a fabrication. Since then I have found more evidence, including the fleet information, and how Antias 12,000 killed and 1,700 captured has been constructed. Some of this information was obtained by tracking the movements of individuals and fleets.
 
So now after some years of processing the information how I am in the process of writing about the events after Utica with some confidence and clarity. The two major arenas of fabrication I am writing an alternative history, are the fall of the monarchy, and the Second Punic War. In relation to the fall of the monarchy, I have read that Alimentus has the relationship between the Latins and the Romans were quite hostile and this would example a few problems I have with the traditional account. However, no matter the evidence presented, the traditional view of Zama will remain, as it is the dramatic climax to the Second Punic War. It is too strongly embedded in the psyche of Roman history.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio - by Steven James - 04-02-2019, 05:16 AM

Forum Jump: