04-11-2019, 02:55 AM
Michael wrote:
Right and don`t forget the naval force limitation of 10 warships supposedly part of Scipio`s 201 BC final peace terms!
The peace terms were that the Carthaginians evacuate Italy, the Romans evacuate Africa, and both countries continue occupying the countries they held. This would mean the Romans kept Iberia, Sicily and Sardinia. No indemnity, no burning of the ships, no restriction on elephants.
Scipio was given full power by the senate to negotiate peace terms on what he thought was right. Many of the ancient historians say the same thing. Now with Nero arriving in Africa with an army and the same powers of imperium as Scipio, it is not hard to imagine that Scipio was in a hurry to secure peace. Appian even claims he did not want Nero to take the glory. However, while waiting for the peace terms to be ratified, the armistice nearly falls apart, and this is the period in which the skirmish at Zama happens. After the Carthaginian supply ships are shipwrecked, Hannibal has to move inland towards Carthage as Scipio’s presence in the area is preventing the land from being harvested. This is creating hunger in Carthage. Now Appian, does explain what was the cause of the armistice nearly breaking down and the war resuming. However, if only Polybius’ version of events is recognised, then the general reader will have no idea another story exists. At this point, I would accept a meeting between Hannibal and Scipio to resolve the problem, which was an extension of time. The Carthaginians could also have handed over to Scipio, 150 hostages in exchange for the extension of time. In case of war breaking out, in which the Romans would have to face the armies of Hannibal, Margo and Hasdrubal, the Roman senate sent Nero to Africa with a consular fleet as reinforcements. This is a good move, but one that would had worried Scipio Africanus.
Michael wrote:
We should point out that it`s not just a question of a fanciful interpretation of historical source material, the archaeological evidence points to Polybius` purposefully embellishing the truth to flatter Scipio and exaggerate the real nature of Hannibal`s and Carthage`s defeat.
Oh that is without a doubt. There was no climatic defeat of Hannibal. The peace terms did not have the Carthaginians being brutally persecuted. This would explain Cato’s hate of the Carthaginians. Polybius has Scipio (Africanus) defeat Hasdrubal Barca at Baecula, when it was Hasdrubal Gisgo at Baecula. The role of the Romans in Iberia was to prevent reinforcements reaching Hannibal from Iberia. Scipio Africanus failed in his mission, so that had to be covered up. The difference between Scipio Africanus and his father in Iberia, was Scipio Africanus went on the offensive. Before that, the Romans in Iberia had a defensive strategy. So credit to Scipio Africanus when due. The battle between Scipio’s father in Iberia against Hasdrubal Barca is also a fabrication. However, it has been stolen from another battle. The Roman light infantry and cavalry engagement before the battle of the Trebbia, in which Sempronius commanded, has been taken from events belonging to Flaminius before the battle of Trasimene. Polybius has Hannibal give a speech to his army after crossing the Rhone. This belongs to after the Ticinus, in which Hannibal’s army advanced to fight Publius Scipio the Elder. There is no battle because Publius Scipio the Elder would not leave his camp to fight. That same night, the Romans flee to Placentia. Polybius omits the real reason for the retreat. It is not hard to find when fact and fiction begin in Polybius’ history.
Have you read some of the responses to people arguing the battle of Zama was historical? One claimed how could the Romans have silenced Scipio’ army from talking and telling the truth there was no battle when they got back to Rome? This stupidity has nothing to do with it. The question remains, when did Polybius’ work become mainstream with the Romans? Did Diodorus, who is the first Greek I know who mentions Polybius, was it Diodorus who made Polybius mainstream with the Romans in the first century BC? Can we be certain that Polybius’ history was not rewritten at a later date? Could it be that by the time of Polybius’ writing, there was already a propaganda version of the Second Punic War in circulation?
Right and don`t forget the naval force limitation of 10 warships supposedly part of Scipio`s 201 BC final peace terms!
The peace terms were that the Carthaginians evacuate Italy, the Romans evacuate Africa, and both countries continue occupying the countries they held. This would mean the Romans kept Iberia, Sicily and Sardinia. No indemnity, no burning of the ships, no restriction on elephants.
Scipio was given full power by the senate to negotiate peace terms on what he thought was right. Many of the ancient historians say the same thing. Now with Nero arriving in Africa with an army and the same powers of imperium as Scipio, it is not hard to imagine that Scipio was in a hurry to secure peace. Appian even claims he did not want Nero to take the glory. However, while waiting for the peace terms to be ratified, the armistice nearly falls apart, and this is the period in which the skirmish at Zama happens. After the Carthaginian supply ships are shipwrecked, Hannibal has to move inland towards Carthage as Scipio’s presence in the area is preventing the land from being harvested. This is creating hunger in Carthage. Now Appian, does explain what was the cause of the armistice nearly breaking down and the war resuming. However, if only Polybius’ version of events is recognised, then the general reader will have no idea another story exists. At this point, I would accept a meeting between Hannibal and Scipio to resolve the problem, which was an extension of time. The Carthaginians could also have handed over to Scipio, 150 hostages in exchange for the extension of time. In case of war breaking out, in which the Romans would have to face the armies of Hannibal, Margo and Hasdrubal, the Roman senate sent Nero to Africa with a consular fleet as reinforcements. This is a good move, but one that would had worried Scipio Africanus.
Michael wrote:
We should point out that it`s not just a question of a fanciful interpretation of historical source material, the archaeological evidence points to Polybius` purposefully embellishing the truth to flatter Scipio and exaggerate the real nature of Hannibal`s and Carthage`s defeat.
Oh that is without a doubt. There was no climatic defeat of Hannibal. The peace terms did not have the Carthaginians being brutally persecuted. This would explain Cato’s hate of the Carthaginians. Polybius has Scipio (Africanus) defeat Hasdrubal Barca at Baecula, when it was Hasdrubal Gisgo at Baecula. The role of the Romans in Iberia was to prevent reinforcements reaching Hannibal from Iberia. Scipio Africanus failed in his mission, so that had to be covered up. The difference between Scipio Africanus and his father in Iberia, was Scipio Africanus went on the offensive. Before that, the Romans in Iberia had a defensive strategy. So credit to Scipio Africanus when due. The battle between Scipio’s father in Iberia against Hasdrubal Barca is also a fabrication. However, it has been stolen from another battle. The Roman light infantry and cavalry engagement before the battle of the Trebbia, in which Sempronius commanded, has been taken from events belonging to Flaminius before the battle of Trasimene. Polybius has Hannibal give a speech to his army after crossing the Rhone. This belongs to after the Ticinus, in which Hannibal’s army advanced to fight Publius Scipio the Elder. There is no battle because Publius Scipio the Elder would not leave his camp to fight. That same night, the Romans flee to Placentia. Polybius omits the real reason for the retreat. It is not hard to find when fact and fiction begin in Polybius’ history.
Have you read some of the responses to people arguing the battle of Zama was historical? One claimed how could the Romans have silenced Scipio’ army from talking and telling the truth there was no battle when they got back to Rome? This stupidity has nothing to do with it. The question remains, when did Polybius’ work become mainstream with the Romans? Did Diodorus, who is the first Greek I know who mentions Polybius, was it Diodorus who made Polybius mainstream with the Romans in the first century BC? Can we be certain that Polybius’ history was not rewritten at a later date? Could it be that by the time of Polybius’ writing, there was already a propaganda version of the Second Punic War in circulation?
