Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio
#26
Michael wrote:

if we doubt Polybius with respect to Zama, we should also question his reliability for the rest of the War in Africa. If there is just some doubt concerning the battles at Utica and the Great Plains, then it adds to Polybius` unreliability for subsequent events.
 
With academics beholding to Polybius as the most reliable of historians, and I will add, without any deep study, they have well and truly painted themselves into a corner. You have to question Polybius’ whole account of the Second Punic War. Much of the fabrication begins with events concerning the Scipio family. From 205 BC, the style of fighting in the Gallic uprising, plus Mago’s battle in Northern Italy is similar in style to Polybius’ Zama. Most of the battles are duplicates of one battle involving a Roman consular army attacked on the march. During the Gallic uprising, Scipio Africanus makes an appearance fighting the Celts.
 
There is a difference between an ancient author confusing events in a battle, such as Asculum which was fought over two days and both days confused, or the battle of Carrhae, which suffers from a chronology problem. However, a fabricated battle is just blatant corruption. Other events have glossed over Roman humiliations, like the Roman infantry in the centre at the Trebbia ran before contact was made, the Roman cavalry at Cannae ran, Marcellus’ bodyguard cavalry ran, leaving him unprotected, the Roman fleet failed to prevent the Carthaginian fleet and Hannibal uniting a Pisa. I have found that some of the minor ancient writers, or those branded as being not so reliable, have provided some deep insights into events we take for granted as only happening in a particular way.
 
Michael wrote:
Polybius account of the battle of the Great Plains seems quite unconvincing; it`s not clear how the Carthaginian infantry could have fled along with their cavalry and leave only the Celtiberians to stand. It`s not much of a battle, more of an excuse to have the Carthaginians run away!
 
The Great Plains is another fabricated battle based on the skirmish concerning Hannibal’s supply train at Zama. I think it was inserted so as to give Scipio a victory in a set piece battle against Hasdrubal. After all, Utica was a sneak attack, and has less glory and honour than victory in a set piece battle. This would explain why Polybius overstates Scipio’s achievement at Utica. Many of the battles fought by the Scipio brothers in Iberia are either embellishments of fabrications.
 
Michael wrote:
Which actually seems to be what they did after the night attack at Utica, with only Syphax then being pursued by Laelius and Massinissa, and Husdrubal managing to get away.
 
Appian has Syphax clear out in the early morning when the Romans went in pursuit of Hasdrubal’s forces. I don’t buy into Polybius’ Roman command structure of Laelius leading half the legionnaires to attack Syphax’s camp, this is a fabrication. Appian makes it clear that Scipio left Masinissa to contain Syphax from sending reinforcements to Hasdrubal’s camp, while the whole Roman force attacked Hasdrubal’s camp. Therefore, Syphax’s force must have been small, as was Masinissa.
 
A lot of my research is backed up by other events that occur during the Second Punic War. The reinforcements of ships numbers that arrive with Publius Scipio the Elder in 217 BC and the 35 ships belonging to his brother Gnaeus. This event reinforces that in 217 BC, the Romans changed the ratio of allied cavalry to Roman cavalry from three to one to two to one. The Scipio brothers left Iberia with 60 ships, 35 are returned to Italy, leaving Gnaeus with 25 ships. Livy has 30 ships replacing the 35 ships, giving a total of 55 ships. Polybius has 20 ships as replacements. This is because Polybius believed 35 ships remained, so to bring to total up to 55, he adds 20 ships. The reason why 35 ships are returned to Italy and only 30 ships sent to Iberia (as per Livy), is because the ratio of allied cavalry to Roman cavalry had changed to less allied cavalry. Therefore, more cavalry were shipped back to Italy and less cavalry sent to Iberia, so the Scipio’s fleet of 60 ships was now reduced to 55 ships. So much information in the primary sources corroborating other information that it has become quite difficult to dispute.
 
Unfortunately, and I do say this with a heavy heart, but so much of the Second Punic War is just Roman propaganda, as is the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus. Hannibal has defeated the Romans more times than they could accept. By the end of 217 BC, I have 14 legions defeated rather than the standard 12 legions (8 at Trebbia, 4 at Trasimene).
 
So no Great Plains, no Zama, and no breaking of the truce by capturing Roman supply ships.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Nameless city in Africa taken by Scipio - by Steven James - 04-09-2019, 06:25 AM

Forum Jump: