04-11-2019, 08:06 AM
"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?"
Yes, I have read responses like like this and I have a similar answer to yours; that Polybius` version of the battle was only written up some time after 160 when, as I understand it he and Gaius Laelius met.
In the meantime, the soldiers were well-paid, the army`s veterans received grants of land in territories belonging to Hannibal`s Italian allies, the generals in the campaign gained public houours and commissions (Thermus, Octavius, and Laelius included).
Cato, replaced by Laelius had returned to Rome early in 202 and so was not a witness.
In the years that followed, many of those soldiers would have "volunteered" to take part in the Macedonian War against Phillip and so were otherwise distracted by any historians working in Rome or Carthage at the time. And this, I think was true of the people who mattered in Rome also.
Livy tells us how the conclusion of the Second Punic War was reported in Rome in 201. The news was welcomed and the reaction jubillant, but it is quite an understated announcement, with no mention of Zama, the dramatic nature of the battle and Livy finds enough editorial space here to mention again the defeat of Vermina in November 202.
"Can we be certain that Polybius’ history was not rewritten at a later date?"
I guess not. In book 15 Polybius the account jumps from the battle and straight to the terms of the peace treaty. I would think this is more of an omission in the original Polybius - a lot of copies would have needed to be destroyed before an edited, rewritten one could replace it.
"Could it be that by the time of Polybius’ writing, there was already a propaganda version of the Second Punic War in circulation?"
Yes, I suspect that any earlier propaganda version would have been based on Antias` battle quoted in Livy, but because he knows about Polybius` version of events he misplaced this earlier report of a major battle before Zama. Another history, another version of events existed which Appian later follows, had talks between Hannibal and Scipio take place after a cavalry battle at Zama and so Antias confused the real battle with the early propaganda version.
Yes, I have read responses like like this and I have a similar answer to yours; that Polybius` version of the battle was only written up some time after 160 when, as I understand it he and Gaius Laelius met.
In the meantime, the soldiers were well-paid, the army`s veterans received grants of land in territories belonging to Hannibal`s Italian allies, the generals in the campaign gained public houours and commissions (Thermus, Octavius, and Laelius included).
Cato, replaced by Laelius had returned to Rome early in 202 and so was not a witness.
In the years that followed, many of those soldiers would have "volunteered" to take part in the Macedonian War against Phillip and so were otherwise distracted by any historians working in Rome or Carthage at the time. And this, I think was true of the people who mattered in Rome also.
Livy tells us how the conclusion of the Second Punic War was reported in Rome in 201. The news was welcomed and the reaction jubillant, but it is quite an understated announcement, with no mention of Zama, the dramatic nature of the battle and Livy finds enough editorial space here to mention again the defeat of Vermina in November 202.
"Can we be certain that Polybius’ history was not rewritten at a later date?"
I guess not. In book 15 Polybius the account jumps from the battle and straight to the terms of the peace treaty. I would think this is more of an omission in the original Polybius - a lot of copies would have needed to be destroyed before an edited, rewritten one could replace it.
"Could it be that by the time of Polybius’ writing, there was already a propaganda version of the Second Punic War in circulation?"
Yes, I suspect that any earlier propaganda version would have been based on Antias` battle quoted in Livy, but because he knows about Polybius` version of events he misplaced this earlier report of a major battle before Zama. Another history, another version of events existed which Appian later follows, had talks between Hannibal and Scipio take place after a cavalry battle at Zama and so Antias confused the real battle with the early propaganda version.
