09-27-2019, 02:59 PM
Michael wrote:
One too many cocktails in the Polybius club, but today I will leave its cheery and welcoming confines to come out into Appian and Cassius Dio alley-ways.
Watch out you could get mugged. However, the first step is the hardest, but congratulations for taking that step.
Michael wrote:
Even, if you discard Polybius and rely just on Appian and Cassius Dio, it is impossible to reduce the Battle of Zama to either a face-off or just a minor skirmish. Appian Pun. 39-41 reports a battle in which 23,000 Roman infantry and 3000 cavalry faced down 50,000 Carthaginian troops. Appian Pun. 48 reports Hannibal suffered 25,000 killed (somewhat more than Polybius! and 8500 captured (rather less than Polybius, but still a lot of prisoners). That is a big battle, not a skirmish and not a face-off.
You’re a historian, go after the numbers. As I have already reported, Appian also provides a figure for Scipio’s army of 16,000 infantry and 1,600 cavalry. Appian also reports that Scipio crossed in Sicily with 7,000 men. Now 16,000 plus 7,000 makes 23,000, which again approximates with Appian figure of 23,000 infantry at Zama. The numbers given for Scipio’s army at good figures, but all it proves is Scipio had that amount of men. It does not prove there was a battle. As for Appian’s figure for Hannibal’s casualties, have you ever closely examined them? I do not accept everything at face value until proven otherwise.
Michael wrote:
Also note the tradition in Appian of the banter between Hannibal and Scipio in the Seleucid court (Syr. 10)….The story only makes sense if Scipio had won a significant and universally recognized victory over Hannibal.
That story is inconsequential. The writer simply believed there was a battle. It is like saying there was no fall of the monarchy without the rape of Lucretia. Someone believed the rape of Lucretia was the catalyst for the downfall of the monarchy.
Michael wrote:
On to Cassius Dio (Zonoras at Dio Book 17): The cliff notes version still describes a big battle, with elephants and elephant channels, and the report that Hannibal's army was most destroyed.
They are following a common source. However, this does not address all the contradiction of events riddled throughout the Second Punic War. After Cartagena was captured by Scipio, his soldiers offered him as a gift some beautiful women. However, as she was betrothed to some prince, Scipio gives her back to her fiancé. Another version claims Scipio kept her. On the History Forum, I was giving my views about Zama being a fabricated battle. Now one of those I was discussing with, gave me a link to a paper on the battle that he believed would defeat my case. As he believed himself to be the big rooster in the chicken yard (the forum), I did not have the heart to tell him I wrote that paper. Once upon a time I believed with all my heart the battle did happen. But my level of research and my understanding of Roman military mathematics over the years have proven to me it is a fabrication. And it is not the only single fabricated battle occurring in the Second Punic War. There are also fake fleet engagements.
Michael wrote:
Indeed, there is no source tradition that denies that a battle took place or suggests that Scipio inflated a minor skirmish (or even a non-event) into a major one.
We don't have all the written accounts, many did not survive. And yet there are contradictory events. I cannot answer why the historical events were interwoven with the fabricated events, but that is what I have been uncovering for some years. Appian seems to try and blend both accounts, as do others. Even Polybius from time to time. From the reign of the kings to the battle of Pynda, the narrative is nothing but contradictory stories relating to the same event. It is too large to dismiss.
Here are two links to George Cornewall Lewis’ study, “An Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Rome Volume one and two. Lewis was responsible for not allowing England to get involved in the American Civil War.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=acc...01&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=acc...01&f=false
Michael wrote:
Scipio had a lot of enemies (remember, he died in exile) , and if he had faked the battle of Zama they certainly would have called him out.
I am not, nor is Michael Collins claiming that Scipio faked the battle. Someone, or through a process of time, injected their own story based on uncontrolled emotion. The true events have been distorted. I find it interesting that you like Paralus, defend the traditional narrative, but will not address my posting showing how Polybius arrived at his numbers for both Syphax and Hasdrubal at the battle of Utica. It was fabricated, and puts new light on Polybius’ methodology. And it is not the only example I have, there as so many others that in a legal sense, if it was evidence for a murder case, I could put Polybius behind bars for three lifetimes. But actually I don’t. I give Polybius the benefit of the doubt and place it on his sources. However, his claim of finding some salty sea tablet giving Hannibal’s army numbers arriving in Italy is a pure lie.
Michael wrote:
Alright, back into the Polybius Club. On Fridays we discuss 18.28-32 and drink sherry.
Oh the phalanx versus the legion, and Polybius’ statement that one legionary faced ten pikes, well I found that to be correct.
One too many cocktails in the Polybius club, but today I will leave its cheery and welcoming confines to come out into Appian and Cassius Dio alley-ways.
Watch out you could get mugged. However, the first step is the hardest, but congratulations for taking that step.
Michael wrote:
Even, if you discard Polybius and rely just on Appian and Cassius Dio, it is impossible to reduce the Battle of Zama to either a face-off or just a minor skirmish. Appian Pun. 39-41 reports a battle in which 23,000 Roman infantry and 3000 cavalry faced down 50,000 Carthaginian troops. Appian Pun. 48 reports Hannibal suffered 25,000 killed (somewhat more than Polybius! and 8500 captured (rather less than Polybius, but still a lot of prisoners). That is a big battle, not a skirmish and not a face-off.
You’re a historian, go after the numbers. As I have already reported, Appian also provides a figure for Scipio’s army of 16,000 infantry and 1,600 cavalry. Appian also reports that Scipio crossed in Sicily with 7,000 men. Now 16,000 plus 7,000 makes 23,000, which again approximates with Appian figure of 23,000 infantry at Zama. The numbers given for Scipio’s army at good figures, but all it proves is Scipio had that amount of men. It does not prove there was a battle. As for Appian’s figure for Hannibal’s casualties, have you ever closely examined them? I do not accept everything at face value until proven otherwise.
Michael wrote:
Also note the tradition in Appian of the banter between Hannibal and Scipio in the Seleucid court (Syr. 10)….The story only makes sense if Scipio had won a significant and universally recognized victory over Hannibal.
That story is inconsequential. The writer simply believed there was a battle. It is like saying there was no fall of the monarchy without the rape of Lucretia. Someone believed the rape of Lucretia was the catalyst for the downfall of the monarchy.
Michael wrote:
On to Cassius Dio (Zonoras at Dio Book 17): The cliff notes version still describes a big battle, with elephants and elephant channels, and the report that Hannibal's army was most destroyed.
They are following a common source. However, this does not address all the contradiction of events riddled throughout the Second Punic War. After Cartagena was captured by Scipio, his soldiers offered him as a gift some beautiful women. However, as she was betrothed to some prince, Scipio gives her back to her fiancé. Another version claims Scipio kept her. On the History Forum, I was giving my views about Zama being a fabricated battle. Now one of those I was discussing with, gave me a link to a paper on the battle that he believed would defeat my case. As he believed himself to be the big rooster in the chicken yard (the forum), I did not have the heart to tell him I wrote that paper. Once upon a time I believed with all my heart the battle did happen. But my level of research and my understanding of Roman military mathematics over the years have proven to me it is a fabrication. And it is not the only single fabricated battle occurring in the Second Punic War. There are also fake fleet engagements.
Michael wrote:
Indeed, there is no source tradition that denies that a battle took place or suggests that Scipio inflated a minor skirmish (or even a non-event) into a major one.
We don't have all the written accounts, many did not survive. And yet there are contradictory events. I cannot answer why the historical events were interwoven with the fabricated events, but that is what I have been uncovering for some years. Appian seems to try and blend both accounts, as do others. Even Polybius from time to time. From the reign of the kings to the battle of Pynda, the narrative is nothing but contradictory stories relating to the same event. It is too large to dismiss.
Here are two links to George Cornewall Lewis’ study, “An Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Rome Volume one and two. Lewis was responsible for not allowing England to get involved in the American Civil War.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=acc...01&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=acc...01&f=false
Michael wrote:
Scipio had a lot of enemies (remember, he died in exile) , and if he had faked the battle of Zama they certainly would have called him out.
I am not, nor is Michael Collins claiming that Scipio faked the battle. Someone, or through a process of time, injected their own story based on uncontrolled emotion. The true events have been distorted. I find it interesting that you like Paralus, defend the traditional narrative, but will not address my posting showing how Polybius arrived at his numbers for both Syphax and Hasdrubal at the battle of Utica. It was fabricated, and puts new light on Polybius’ methodology. And it is not the only example I have, there as so many others that in a legal sense, if it was evidence for a murder case, I could put Polybius behind bars for three lifetimes. But actually I don’t. I give Polybius the benefit of the doubt and place it on his sources. However, his claim of finding some salty sea tablet giving Hannibal’s army numbers arriving in Italy is a pure lie.
Michael wrote:
Alright, back into the Polybius Club. On Fridays we discuss 18.28-32 and drink sherry.
Oh the phalanx versus the legion, and Polybius’ statement that one legionary faced ten pikes, well I found that to be correct.
