Revisiting Zama

[Michael Collins]

The attempts to identify the battlefield of "Zama" have largely been based upon the notion that it was without doubt a large scale battle and so people have actively searched for large, flat plains where big armies can deploy with ease and the cavalries would have been able to manouevre. But these sites have no monuments associated with them.

We have some physical evidence of a battlefield monument close to Zama. How then do the histories match the evidence?
Take the surprise appearance of Massinissa and Polybius` three spies story.
I think it far more likely that Massinissa`s forces could have been kept out of view from Hannibal at Kbor Klib, than if the battle had taken place on a wide, flat plain. In a wide flat plain it would be difficult to decieve Hannibal that Massinissa had not turned up until the very last moment. Why did Hannibal give battle?
In Appian (and Zonoras too) the big surprise is Scipio turning to face Hannibal after the Romans made a retrograde movement
and Massinissa is there. He is there because later Hannibal negotiates with Scipio through Massinissa, and yet he still engages in a major battle knowing he is out-numbered in mounted troops. This is why Polybius adapted and upgraded the original 3 spies story from a means to undermine enemy morale to a deception to mislead Hannibal as to the strength of Scipio`s cavalry forces. So instead of a cavalry battle at Kbor Klib followed by skirmishes and then a negotiated armistice, we have the great battle of Zama (that never was).

There is more reason to believe Appian and Zonoras` version of how the armies first met than in Polybius` pre-battle coverage.

And I`m pretty sure I`m not out in the cold here without a drink; I can take the stylistic differences of Livy, Polybius and Appian for what they are.