Revisiting Zama

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:
I am focusing here on the little people in the campaign; after Cassius Dio`s time they are forgotten. However if we can account for their actions, motivations and movements at this time we will surely gain a better understanding of the events. The actions of the minor characters in the story need to fit into the motivations and stratagies of their leaders.

I can’t disagree with you. Just be wary of basing anything on surmising. People will eat you. As to the smaller officers, I think one naval officer found in Livy has returned with the fleet from Africa a year after Zama. It’s on my question list and has not gotten my full attention at the moment.

As to Quintus Minicius (sometimes spelt Minucius) Thermus, funny enough, I am also tracking his career, and he has solved a major problem for me in relation to the levy of 192 BC, which has been muddled somewhat.

Livy 35.20: “In Rome people spoke of Antiochus as the enemy, but beyond this attitude of mind they were making no preparations for war. Both the consuls had Italy assigned to them as their province on the understanding that they were either to come to a mutual agreement or leave it to the ballot as to which of them should preside at the elections. The one to whom this duty did not fall was to be prepared to take the legions wherever they were needed beyond the shores of Italy. He was empowered to raise two fresh legions as well as 20,000 infantry and 800 cavalry from the Latins and allied States. The two legions which L. Cornelius had as consul the year before were assigned to the other consul, together with 15,000 allied infantry and 500 cavalry drawn from the same army. Q. Minucius retained his command and the army which he had in Liguria. and was ordered to bring it up to full strength by raising 4000 Roman infantry and 150 cavalry, whilst the allies were to furnish him with 5000 infantry and 250 cavalry. The duty of taking the legions wherever the senate thought fit outside Italy fell to Cn. Domitius; L. Quinctius obtained Gaul as his province and also the conduct of the elections. The result of the balloting amongst the praetors was as follows: M. Fulvius Centumanus received the civic and L. Scribonius Libo the alien jurisdiction; L. Valerius Tappo drew Sicily; Q. Salonius Sarra, Sardinia; M. Baebius Tamphilus, Hither Spain; A. Atilius Serranus, Further Spain. The two latter, however, had their commands transferred first by a resolution of the senate and then by a confirmatory resolution of the plebs; A. Atilius had the fleet and Macedonia assigned to him, and Baebius was appointed to the command in Bruttium. Flaminius and Fulvius were left in command in the two Spains. Baebius received for his operations in Bruttium the two legions which had previously been quartered in the City and also 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to be supplied by the allies. Atilius was ordered to construct 30 quinqueremes, to take from the dockyards any old ships that might be serviceable and to impress crews. The consuls were required to supply him with 1000 Roman and 2000 allied infantry. It was stated that these two praetors with their land and sea armies were to act against Nabis who was now openly attacking the allies of Rome. The arrival of the commissioners who had been sent to Antiochus was, however, expected, and the senate forbade Cn. Domitius to leave the City till they returned.”

Livy 35 20: “Before the consul L. Quinctius reached his province Q. Minucius fought a pitched battle with the Ligurians near Pisae. He killed 9000 of the enemy and drove the rest in flight to their camp, which was attacked and defended with furious fighting until nightfall.”

Problem solved. Also M. Cincius Alimentus served with Q. Minucius Thermus in 193 BC in Liguria.

[Michael Collins]

Thanks for the heads up. I am endeavouring to keep focused, but you`re right I shouldn`t speculate too much.
But on the other hand, if the only alternative is a blind acceptance of all that is contained in Polybius` account of the campaign (which btw I find elsewhere), then I think I`ll continue to look for other interpretations to the events and to the roles of the other military tribunes who were also in Scipio`s army.

Yes, I had noticed that link too between Minucius Thermus and Alimentus` family after you had recommended me to look at the Gallic war.

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:
But on the other hand, if the only alternative is a blind acceptance of all that is contained in Polybius` account of the campaign

Then that would make you a conformist. You become a member of the Polybius club, and all new members get a free drink. You would be loved by the blind faithful, and you can produce the same hogwash as the blind faithful. Another bonus is  and it’s the easiest road to travel

Michael wrote:
Yes, I had noticed that link too between Minucius Thermus and Alimentus` family after you had recommended me to look at the Gallic war.

Oh there is more than just a name to look at. Livy’s source for 192 BC is looking like Alimentus. Notice how Minucius Thermus is allocated 9,000 infantry (4,000 Romans and 5,000 allied). Notice how Minucius Thermus’ army defeats and kills 9,000 Ligurians. The source is Alimentus; he uses Roman figures for the enemy, time and time again. Now those 9,000 Roman and allied infantry were not allocated to Minucius Thermus. All should be allocated to Atilius for the forthcoming campaign against Nabis of Sparta which is levying naval legions. The levy of 192 BC, like many other campaigns from 192 BC to 168 BC, has too many cooks. For 192 BC, Alimentus was the original source, then Polybius comes along, used Alimentus, and bingo, you now have a pig’s breakfast. Alimentus used non rounded figures, Polybius rounded them, and then subtracts rounded totals and subtotals from Alimentus’ non rounded figures. And that is why you get figures of a consul with 20,000 allied infantry and 800 allied cavalry, or 15,000 allied infantry and 500 allied cavalry etc.etc.

Atilius’ 1,000 Romans and 2,000 allied infantry have been subtracted from Minucius Thermus, thereby leaving Minucius Thermus with 4,000 Romans and 5,000 allied infantry. The 2,000 allied infantry allocated to Atilius should be deducted from Minucius Thermus 5,000 allied infantry. This type of mathematical mistake is Polybius’ trademark. Atilius plus Minucius Thermus’ infantry belong to naval legions. Numbers give it away.

So having references to Alimentus being around for a given year is a godsend.

[Michael J. Taylor]

Wait, first round is on the Club? Where's my drink chit?!

[Steven James]

Wait, first round is on the Club? Where's my drink chit?!

Reports indicate that members of the Polybius club, after reading Polybius would lose the ability to analyse or be critical, and would refrain from other ancient historians. It is recorded that some in the Polybius club developed a strange amnesia towards other ancient historians. When reading out aloud the works of other ancient historians, some members of the Polybius club had unbearable seizures, often screaming in fear, followed by fits of diarrhoea. This was followed by a period of high euphoria, in which members believed they were communicating with Polybius in the afterlife. These unexplainable health issues from reading Polybius caught the attention of the government. Soon mysterious gentlemen dressed in black coats would kidnap members of the Polybius club and conduct experiments. When the experiments confirmed the effects, it is rumoured the CIA developed this into some kind of uncanny military weapon. It has now been learnt that this mysterious weapon is none other than the Haldon Collider, which is a device for awakening the Egyptian god Osiris.

If you experience any strange symptoms while reading Polybius, please stop reading Polybius immediately.

[Paralus]

Wait, first round is on the Club? Where's my drink chit?!

I picked up the tab. Your shout next: anything decently red or black (ale) will do fine. Don't forget one for Polybios.

[Steven James]

I picked up the tab. Your shout next: anything decently red or black (ale) will do fine. Don't forget one for Polybios.

Does this now mean I will get an answer to my questions on the Livy Polybius biases thread?

[Michael Collins]

I`d like to ask those club members why they think that Polybius omitted the actions that Appian and Livy say Thermus and Octavius took part?
Or do they perhaps believe that Appian and Livy fabricated these battles ?

[Michael Collins]

Gentlemen and all Michaels, 

Rather than a trip to Nevada, we should perhaps all meet up in the Siliana valley, Tunisia and really revisit Zama!

I posted a reference earlier to it, but has anyone here read Duncan Ross` book, Kbor Klib and the battle of Zama ?

I`d like to remind everyone again about this, as there has been no response.

Need a copy ?

Kbor Klib and the Battle of Zama: An Analysis of the Monument in Tunisia and Its Possible Connection with the Battle Waged Between Hannibal and Scipio in 202BC (BAR International Series 1399) Paperback – 16 Aug 2005


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kbor-Klib-Battl...1841718386

[Steven James]

Michael wrote:
I`d like to ask those club members why they think that Polybius omitted the actions that Appian and Livy say Thermus and Octavius took part? Or do they perhaps believe that Appian and Livy fabricated these battles?

I wouldn’t hold your breath. I'm still waiting on Paralus (Michael) to answer my questions on the Livy and Polybius biases thread. It is probable the Polybian faithful most likely hold the view that Polybius had correctly decided fact from fiction and only dealt with the facts.

Polybius (1 44) has a Carthaginian fleet of 200 ships conveying 10,000 troops. Diodorus (24 1 2) claims 4,000 troops. Who is correct? Now if a study had been undertaken on Polybius to determine if he is reliable, then the question would be answered.

At the battle of Mylae in 260 BC, CIL 12 2 25 has 43 Carthaginian ships sunk and captured. Eutropius has 45 Carthaginian ships, Orosius has 44 Carthaginian ships, and Polybius has 80 Carthaginian ships. Here we find Polybius is the only one above the average of 43 to 45 ships, but a difference of 35 to 37 ships. Previous to the battle of Mylae Polybius mentions 50 ships and 30 Carthaginian ships being captured at Mylae. It becomes obvious how Polybius has made his mistake. What the blind followers of Polybius do not realise, or do not want to acknowledge is Polybius is a very sloppy historian, and he must have had a broken abacus.[

Enclosed a few examples reported by Plutarch highlighting contradictions between Polybius and other writers.

Plutarch Aemilius 15:
“Aemilius, accordingly, delighted, gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is, 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left wing numbering 5,000. In addition to these, Nasica took 120 horsemen, besides 200 of the mixed Thracians and Cretans with Harpalus.”

Plutarch Aemilius 16: “These men, according to Polybius, were still asleep when the Romans fell upon them; but Nasica says that a sharp and perilous conflict took place for possession of the heights.”

Plutarch Aemilius 19: “The king of the Macedonians, on the other hand, according to Polybius, as soon as the battle began, played the coward and rode back to the city, under pretence of sacrificing to Heracles, a god who does not accept cowardly sacrifices from cowards, nor accomplish their unnatural prayers…“However, a certain Poseidonius, who says he lived in those times and took part in those actions, and who has written a history of Perseus in several books, says it was not out of cowardice, nor with the excuse of the sacrifice, that the king went away.” Poseidonius makes the claim that Perseus was wounded during the fighting.

Here is another example of the contradictory accounts that faced the ancient historians. Livy (37 48) writes: “After the new consuls had assumed office a rumour-so Valerius Antias tells us-gained wide currency in Rome to the effect that the two Scipios-Lucius and Africanus-had been invited to meet Antiochus for the purpose of receiving back the young Scipio, and that they were arrested, the king's army at once led against the Roman camp, which was captured, and the entire Roman force wiped out. It was further stated that the Aetolians gained fresh courage from this, and refused to carry out the commands laid upon them; their leaders went to Macedonia, Dardania and Thrace to raise a force of mercenaries. Valerius goes on to say that it was reported that A. Terentius Varro and M. Claudius Lepidus were sent by the propraetor A. Cornelius from Achaia to carry this news to Rome. He supplements this tale by informing us that on their appearance before the senate the Aetolians were questioned on this among other matters, and asked from whom they had heard that the Roman commanders were made prisoners by Antiochus and their army destroyed, and that they stated in reply that they had been so informed by their envoys, who were with the consul. I have no other authority for this story, and whilst in my opinion it lacks confirmation, I have not passed it over as entirely groundless.”

[Michael Collins]

No response either about Duncan Ross` publication...
I only hope that people will ignore the evidence far less than they do me !

[Steven James]

No response either about Duncan Ross` publication...
I only hope that people will ignore the evidence far less than they do me !

Not everyone has access to these journals, so that needs to be taken into account. To create a conversation, can you post extracts of the article?

[Michael Collins]

Although this publication has been around for almost 15 years and one might have expected that members here (who otherwise seem to be widely read) would have already seen or heard of it at least?... I think your point is very fair.

But here anyway is an extract.

Page 63. Looking for Zama.
"... the battle took place at the southern end of the Plain of Sers, near the village of Seba Biar, a location only advanced by Russell. This paper also proposes that Kbor Klib, a second century B.C. Numidian monument seven kilometres from Seba Biar, bearing martial decorations, and with no good explanation of its being there was constructed to commemorate the battle of Zama...

Kbor Klib dominates the slopes of a ridgeline to the east of Seba Biar. As noted by Ferchiou, the monument is hidden when approached from the east. From Seba Biar itself the structure is barely visible on the skyline, and would have been so even at its original height and coloration. Travelling west from Seba Biar on the natural route dictated by the topography, Kbor Klib comes into view at a point approximately midway between the village and the monument (fig.58). It seems clearly from here, along the three or four kilometer stretch of country lane, that the monument has significiance. And it is specifically here, in the farmland along this same stretch of roadway, that the battle of Zama is proposed to have been fought.

The site suits the limited infomation given in the ancient sources. Polybius notes that Hannibal, when he moved from Zama to a location near Scipio, camped at 30 stades, or approximately five kilometers, from his adversary (Lazenby 1998:218). It is proposed that Hannibal camped on the ridgeline where today stand the ruin of Kbor Klib. Scipio is proposed to have camped on the hill shown in the photograph below, taken from the summit of Kbor Klib, looking west (fig 59). The distance bewteen these two putative camps, measure by GPS, is 4.6 kilometers. It is proposed that the battle was fought here, on the plain between these two locations. This plain rises gently at one end, sloping away at the other, and includes relatively level terrain roughly five kilometers in width, more than wide enough for the four-kilometer long battle lines shown by Kromayer and Veith reconstruction of the battle ...."

a scan of figures 58 and 59:
http://grandmanoeuvre.co.uk/wp-content/u...img236.jpg

[Steven James]

Duncan Ross: “This plain rises gently at one end, sloping away at the other, and includes relatively level terrain roughly five kilometers in width, more than wide enough for the four-kilometer long battle lines shown by Kromayer and Veith reconstruction of the battle ...."

Wow, a four kilometre front for the Roman army. That is quite a large frontage. I wonder if Kromayer and Veith have based that frontage on when the Roman army extended during the battle as narrated by Polybius? In my paper on Pharsalus, I have calculated both Caesar and Pompey’s armies as having a frontage of 4,500 feet, which is 1,500 yards or 260 yards short of an English mile.

[Michael Collins]

Well, that is assuming the battle was as large as Polybius and others believe it to have been. If we look at Appian and Zonoras they say that the first meeting in this vicinity was a cavalry battle and so the space would have been quite sufficient.