Revisiting Zama

[Steven James]

Michael Collins wrote:
Polybius does not mention Gaius Laelius being sent to Rome immediately after the battle of Zama…Livy and Appian both include Laelius` mission however: Livy firstly, in Book 30.36: “Laelius to Rome to report his victory.” (Trans. Cyrus Edmonds 1850) That first news of a victory against Hannibal would have arrived in Rome around the beginning of November 202, but it would be another five months before the formal announcement of the end of the war in Rome and celebrations were held.

I believe Laelius’ return to Rome after Zama is a fabrication based on fact. I am following the chronology that after Syphax was captured Livy (30 16 and 30 17) has Laelius return to Rome with Syphax, and was ordered by the senate to remain in Rome.

[Michael Collins]

Appian though gives more information about Laelius` return to Rome after Zama and this would appear to come from a source, or sources other than Livy or Polybius.

[Steven James]

Michael Collins wrote:
Appian though gives more information about Laelius` return to Rome after Zama and this would appear to come from a source, or sources other than Livy or Polybius.

I don’t believe the source that is fabricating events in Africa is Polybius. I believe Polybius is following the fabricator, which is the propaganda version. If I had to give a name to the fabricator, I would say Alimentus. Those two links I provided discuss Alimentus and Fabius Pictor.

[Michael Collins]

I think you`re right that Alimentus was in the right place at the right time and had the motives to fabricate, but there are so many sources implicit in Appian that lead me to believe/suspect that the official, family history of Scipio`s son and Scipio`s memoirs are represented there too and that these were fabrications too. Most notable I think, we have the contrasting description of the infantry fight in Appian`s and Polybius` accounts.
Polybius had several previous versions of this history to sift though to arrive at the final version of his Zama campaign and then there was Gaius Laelius and Gaius Laelius Jnr. who would supplement the text further! Perhaps Book 15 is so short and fragmentary because at a late stage he needed to edit and censor his own work ?

Checking those links again - they both take me to the same page.

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:
I think you`re right that Alimentus was in the right place at the right time and had the motives to fabricate, but there are so many sources implicit in Appian that lead me to believe/suspect that the official, family history of Scipio`s son and Scipio`s memoirs are represented there too and that these were fabrications too.

The only piece I know of about Scipio’s son was written by Cicero (Brutus 77): “Contemporary with the Cato above-mentioned (though somewhat older) were C. Flaminius, C. Varro, Q. Maximus, Q. Metellus, P. Lentulus, and P. Crassus who was joint Consul with the elder Africanus  [205 B.C.]. This Scipio, we are told, was not destitute of the powers of eloquence: but his son, who adopted the younger Scipio (the son of Paulus  Aemilius) would have stood foremost in the list of orators, if he had possessed a firmer constitution. This is evident from a few speeches, and a Greek History of his, which are very agreeably written.”

If the links are broken, look for the title of the books in Google Books.[/font]

[Steven James]

An examination of Appian's battle of Zama

https://www.academia.edu/10877711/The_pr...o=download

[Michael Collins]

Re. "The problems with Appian's account of the Battle of Zama" by James Presland...

Recommended for Polybius Club Members:

"The Battle of Zama opened with Hannibal forming his elephants in front of his army and charging them in an all-out frontal assault on the Romans. Appian’s account agrees with this, although what happens next is completely in the realms of fantasy."

"...highly improbable as it contradicts the established account of the battle given to us by the main sources of Polybius and Livy..."

[Steven James]

Appian’s account of the Roman Civil wars and anything not related to the Second Punic War are quite coherent. The reason for Appian's account of the Second Punic War is there are many differing accounts written by ancient historians relating to the Second Punic War. I have found many of Appian’s battle accounts have been confused with other battles. At Cannae, Appian has Hannibal extend his cavalry frontage, causing the Romans to extend to a dangerous thinness. Livy explains the Roman cavalry had no room to manoeuvre at Cannae, so perhaps Appian was referring to the Roman left wing. However, I doubt this to be so. Appian has confused his battles, so some event that occurred at Cannae also occurred in another battle, and this caused the mix up.

I also stumbled on a piece of information that confirms Paullus was the prior consul at Cannae and not Varro. I haven’t found this reference in Lazenby, Goldsworthy, Scullard, Lancell, Bagnall and many others.

And another piece of intrigue surfaces. Livy has Fabius Maximus warning Aemilius Paullus when he was leaving Rome for Cannae that Terentius Varro would prove a more dangerous enemy than Hannibal. Fabius Maximus also warned Aemilius Paullus that Varro was ignorant of military science, the nature of this war, was a madman, and ignorant of Hannibal. Fabius Maximus goes on to advice Aemilius Paullus that Hannibal can be defeated by a war of attrition, whereas Terentius Varro’s desire for a battle will play into Hannibal’s hands. In a similar story, Valerius Maximus has the consul Livius Salinator, in 207 BC, before leaving for Rome to face Hasdrubal Barca, has Fabius Maximus warn Livius Salinator not to engage in battle before he had acquainted himself with the Carthaginian’s power and morale. Livius Salinator replied that he would not let pass the first opportunity to fight, which follows Livy’s theme of Terentius Varro’s desire for battle.

Livy does not mention Fabius Maximus giving advice to Livius Salinator. My personal opinion is the event of 207 BC is most likely historical, but has been moved to 216 BC in order to degrade Varro.

I have received emails from some Spanish historians debating the Second Punic War in Spain. They believe there are multiply duplications of events, such as the Illiturgi’s siege. They are also experiencing the same chronology problems I have experienced. These guys prefer to rely on Appian and Zonaras for chronology and geographical order. So Michael, we are not alone.

[Michael Collins]

It`s jolly nice to know that we`re not alone in our doubts about Polybius` reliablilty. As we have pointed out here and on other threads, there is material evidence that not only contradicts events in Polybius` history but also support other accounts of the north African campaigns:
And the evidence is in the following:

The pottery finds in excavations by the British Mission dating the circular harbour to the early C2nd BC. - after the peace treaty of 201 BC.
"Review of Excavations at Carthage The British Mission etc... The International Journal of the Nautical Archaeology 1995"

The Rylands Papyrus III 491 which is likely to be part of Pictor`s history, but presents a different perspective of the events leading to Carthage`s peace delegation to Rome in 203 BC.
Polybius and the Papyrus: The Persuasiveness of "P. Rylands" III 491 by Dexter Hoyos
at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20190797?se...b_contents

There were two military monuments in present-day Tunisa built by Massinissa and his successor Micipsa
The BAR publication on Kbor Klib by Duncan Ross - you`ll find the reference for this on this thread above.
Dating evidence is included in this - this may have been missed by readers here who have access to the publication.

I started a new thread on the monument at Chemtou which was similar in structure to the one at Kbor Klib, close to Zama and I made the connection with the date of the battle given by Livy, the dedication of a temple built on the site and Saturnalia.
https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...?tid=31176

I feel that the burden of proof is on the followers of Polybius to present evidence to support his version of the battle as a Roman victory.... a tropaion; a Roman monument to Roman dead would be a start.

[Michael Collins]

Returning to the scene, has anyone wondered how many troops that Scipio may have detached from his army before Polybius` battle of Zama?
Utica, Scipio`s operational base must have been garrisoned and Scipio`s camp at Tunes and the works constructed there to besiege Carthage would surely have required a force of at least 4,000 or so men.
Leaving aside its questionable track record and quality, can we be sure then that Scipio`s army was sufficient in numbers to meet Hannibal`s in the field ?

[Michael Collins]

In addition to forces that Scipio would have been obliged to leave at his camps and operational base, there was, of course the detachment made assigning a small body of troops to Massinissa to secure the immediate area and Massinissa kingdom.
It would appear that around 6,000 infantry and cavalry were detached

Polybius Book 15.4
"For Massanissa, as I above stated, immediately on the conclusion of the treaty left with his own forces, taking with him besides ten cohorts of Roman cavalry and infantry, and p473 legates on the part of Scipio, in order not only to recover his paternal kingdom, but with the assistance of the Romans to add that of Syphax to it, which he ultimately succeeded in doing."

Polybius says that this happened sometime before Scipio decided to march west along the Bagradas and so initiating the Zama campaign.

Jumping forward to Polybius` battle of Zama itself he outlines the approximate strenghts of Massinissa`s combined force and this is echoed later by Livy.

Polybius 15.5
"Next day Massanissa arrived with six thousand foot and four thousand horse. Scipio received him kindly, congratulating him on having brought under his dominion all the former subjects of Syphax."

Livy 30.29
"After asking them whether they had examined all to their satisfaction, he sent them back with an escort to Hannibal. The report they gave was anything but pleasant hearing for him, for as it happened Masinissa had on that very day come in with a force of 6000 infantry and 4000 cavalry. What gave him most uneasiness was the confidence of the enemy which he saw too clearly was not without good grounds."

For the Roman force, if two cavalry "cohorts" were amongst the ten quoted this would be 960 cavalrymen, and the
eight infantry cohorts remaining would be have 3,840 men. But the 6,000 infantry in both Polybius and Livy includes Roman velites. The light infantry in the cohort would be 40 Velites x 6 centuries would be 240 men and so there would be 1,920 in the 8 infantry cohorts.

We have then 3,840 Hastati/Pricipes/Triarii + 1,920 Velites = 5,760 and this was rounded up to 6,000. But the total of Romans including cavalry originally attached to Massinissa`s command would have numbered 6,720.

So the question is, with more than 10,000 of his troops detached, why would Scipio risk a major engagement ?

[Nick the Noodle]

A couple of regulars there have tried to remove my post. 

We don't do that over here. 
Have you read this thread?

It doesn't happen there either. There is a world of difference between a poster suggesting a thread has gone in circles for some time and should probably be closed to removing a post.

[Michael Collins]

A couple of regulars there have tried to remove my post. 

We don't do that over here. 
Have you read this thread?

It doesn't happen there either. There is a world of difference between a poster suggesting a thread has gone in circles for some time and should probably be closed to removing a post.

Dear Readers,
I must confess to have gone around in circles at some points. It feels like that way anyhow; I have found myself re-running the story of Zama over and over in my head because I have genuinely had an issue with reconcilling the other accouts of the campaign with it.
Those other accounts have apparently been discredited in the past and are still dismissed for reasons of their literary style. I feel however that, being drawn from previous Roman sources, that they have some value as history. 
So, it is difficult to decide between them who is telling the truth, but in addition to the contadictions, additions and omissions that come to one`s attention in reading Polybius`, Livy`s, Appian`s and Dio`s accounts, we have the more detailed justifications of Polybius` battle from modern historians (by modern, I mean post-nineteeth century) to deal with.  It`s interesting that they do not all accept Polybius` version of Zama word for word; even they have expressed doubts about the campaign`s circumstances. e.g. why did Hannibal decide to give battle, when on many occasions in Italy he had refused battle and slipped away from his opponents. 
To date in the discussions here, I have mostly expressed my doubts about the Polybian battle, but elsewhere I`ve been working on presenting evidence that will suggest a different ending to the 2PW. Mostly likely this "evidence" won`t take the form of a corroded javelin head from Kbor Klib, but it will involve going back to read Polybius, Livy, Appian and Dio again.  It`s a work in progress and looking again at an event or a series of events may only appear to be "going around in circles".

[Michael Collins]

Kbor Klib: the battlefield of Zama. Free Download at http://grandmanoeuvre.co.uk/product-cate...es/page/7/