04-02-2019, 03:53 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2019, 04:06 PM by Michael Collins.)
"You could go insane trying to work this out. "
Well, I`ve just used quick searches for historian`s names in my word docs of Livy`s books 1-10 and 21-45.
Don`t worry Steven, I think I`m holding it together so far!
In several places Livy remarks that Coelius is at odds with Antias` stats. So Antias is getting his figures from a source closer in time to the actual events. I believe it might be Alimentus, but ultimately the source is Fabius Pictor.
Also, it seems that Coelius is the link for the Carthaginian information that would have come from Silenos.
Later of course, Appian is likely to have had access to Antias, Coelius and Pictor, but possibly not Silenos and this may be why he opted for both versions of the battle of Zama.
Silenos, who is missing, would I think have only had the following sequence of events;
Zama 1.0, skirmishes, Thermus` capture of the supply train (which may have been reinforcements from Vermina instead),
negotiations, and then an armistice between Hannibal`s and Scipio`s forces.
It`s not the exciting climax to the campaign that the Romans loved for so long. But then there`s no need to struggle in making Polybius` battle work in the way that it should.
By the way, I fully agree with you about the frontage issue of Scipio`s redeployment and with the remarks you made elsewhere about the author not understanding how war elephants were meant to be employed... and how unrealistic it was that Scipio`s Hastati could fight witout being relieved at all. But if it don`t work... we should attempt to find a more credible version of the Zama campaign.
Well, I`ve just used quick searches for historian`s names in my word docs of Livy`s books 1-10 and 21-45.
Don`t worry Steven, I think I`m holding it together so far!
In several places Livy remarks that Coelius is at odds with Antias` stats. So Antias is getting his figures from a source closer in time to the actual events. I believe it might be Alimentus, but ultimately the source is Fabius Pictor.
Also, it seems that Coelius is the link for the Carthaginian information that would have come from Silenos.
Later of course, Appian is likely to have had access to Antias, Coelius and Pictor, but possibly not Silenos and this may be why he opted for both versions of the battle of Zama.
Silenos, who is missing, would I think have only had the following sequence of events;
Zama 1.0, skirmishes, Thermus` capture of the supply train (which may have been reinforcements from Vermina instead),
negotiations, and then an armistice between Hannibal`s and Scipio`s forces.
It`s not the exciting climax to the campaign that the Romans loved for so long. But then there`s no need to struggle in making Polybius` battle work in the way that it should.
By the way, I fully agree with you about the frontage issue of Scipio`s redeployment and with the remarks you made elsewhere about the author not understanding how war elephants were meant to be employed... and how unrealistic it was that Scipio`s Hastati could fight witout being relieved at all. But if it don`t work... we should attempt to find a more credible version of the Zama campaign.
