04-20-2019, 08:07 AM
Michael wrote:
Appian gives Laelius as the commander on the Roman right wing and he is commanding cavalry because he has Numidians opposite his position. Octavius is mentioned as the Roman commander on the left, but he would be commanding a body of infantry, again because the enemy troops he is fighting are Ligurians and Celts, not the cavalry. (Appian 9.44)
Now that is a lesson in looking up the sources instead of trusting to memory.
Michael wrote:
But anyhow, I do still suspect that these are really two different battles - the infantry battle in which Appian gives details about the Roman commanders is from some earlier fiction and the battle itself, in which Laelius was the senior Roman commander present supported by Massinissa.
For me it is the cavalry skirmish followed by the attack on the supply train. That is it, not big Zama, no 80 elephants, no veterans of the third line as Polybius tells us. It would seem that Appian has his hands on the factual account and sadly, has then tried to weave in the Polybian version. Livy has done this with Baucula.
I’ve been giving the Second Punic war a rest at present. The year 298 BC has caught my attention. We have a Scipio present during the Third Samnite War, and already contradiction has reared its head. A great battle fought by Scipio, but a funerary inscription shows he only captured two towns and took hostages. The other consul is also reported to have fought a set piece battle, won and given a triumph. This could show that the fabrication of the Scipio’s could have been a family affair, and not the work of Polybius. Still more digging to do.
Appian gives Laelius as the commander on the Roman right wing and he is commanding cavalry because he has Numidians opposite his position. Octavius is mentioned as the Roman commander on the left, but he would be commanding a body of infantry, again because the enemy troops he is fighting are Ligurians and Celts, not the cavalry. (Appian 9.44)
Now that is a lesson in looking up the sources instead of trusting to memory.
Michael wrote:
But anyhow, I do still suspect that these are really two different battles - the infantry battle in which Appian gives details about the Roman commanders is from some earlier fiction and the battle itself, in which Laelius was the senior Roman commander present supported by Massinissa.
For me it is the cavalry skirmish followed by the attack on the supply train. That is it, not big Zama, no 80 elephants, no veterans of the third line as Polybius tells us. It would seem that Appian has his hands on the factual account and sadly, has then tried to weave in the Polybian version. Livy has done this with Baucula.
I’ve been giving the Second Punic war a rest at present. The year 298 BC has caught my attention. We have a Scipio present during the Third Samnite War, and already contradiction has reared its head. A great battle fought by Scipio, but a funerary inscription shows he only captured two towns and took hostages. The other consul is also reported to have fought a set piece battle, won and given a triumph. This could show that the fabrication of the Scipio’s could have been a family affair, and not the work of Polybius. Still more digging to do.
