Ancient Armies YouTube video on Zama

[Justin Swanton]

Hi everyone. I've recently started a YouTube channel on army composition, formations, tactics and fighting methods as well as battles, campaigns, etc., in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Two videos up so far, the second one on Zama. You can see it here.

I've done quite a bit of research (published a book even!) and my intention is to bring some new material to the table. For Zama I ask three questions: 1. Why did Hannibal deploy his veterans 200 yards behind the other two lines? 2. Why deploy the lines behind each other if they evidently had no idea of or at least were not configured for line relief? 3. Why did Hannibal fight at all since he was seriously outnumbered in cavalry? The video attempts to answer those questions.

BTW there's been an interesting discussion on the video over at TMP. You can see it here.

[Steven James]

I did an article for Slingshot back in the late 90’s, if memory serves me well, explaining that Hannibal kept his third line of veterans 200 yards to the rear of the second line so as to outflank the Roman infantry. This then became impossible with the rout of the second line onto the third line of veterans. I think the article was titled “Zama, the infantry battle revisited.”

 

I once had an interesting debate with me debunking the battle of Zama on the History Forum, and the person who I was in debate with believed I would change my mind after reading a paper on the battle. The link was then given, and lo and behold, it was my paper on the battle of Zama. So it seems I am a good historian when I agree there was a battle of Zama, but a bad historian if I don’t believe there was a battle of Zama.

 

I don’t believe there was a battle of Zama between Scipio and Hannibal. An intense investigation into army numbers and causality numbers from the First Punic War to the end of the Second Punic War has shown be the truth. My paper on Scipio’s army and fleet of 204 BC, contains one piece of information relating to how Appian arrived at Hannibal’s army incurring 25,000 killed and 8,000 captured.

 

(PDF) THE ARMY AND FLEET OF PUBLIUS SCIPIO'S AFRICAN CAMPAIGN: 204 BC | Steven James - Academia.edu

 

“The numbers allocated to Publius Scipio’s army do not end with the Roman army. Appian’s 25,000 Carthaginians killed at the battle of Zama in 202 BC has been rounded and converted from Publius Scipio’s army of 24,880 men (22,720 infantry and 2,160 cavalry). Appian’s figure of 8,500 Carthaginians captured at Zama has been arrived at by deducting the 16,320 infantry that Publius Scipio levied in Italy in 204 BC from the 24,880 men in Africa, resulting in a residue of 8,560 men, which has been rounded and converted to 8,500 Carthaginians captured.”

 

24880 men (Africa)

- 16320 infantry (Italy)

= 8560 men

 

Someone commented to me that my numbers for Scipio’s navy and fleet were within a point 00001 margin. I’ve had a lot of offline discussions from people from all over the world, but so far no one online will say boo about those numbers.

 

I’ve since discovered how all the ancient historians have arrived at their numbers and causalities for Hannibal’s army at Zama. My conclusion is the battle of Zama was a fabricated battle invented by Cincius Alimentus. It was not the only battle Cincius Alimentus has fabricated. This I know because Cincius Alimentus leaves a mathematical signature.

 

Now I followed the link to the TMP and well, I see I have been drawn into the debate on that forum. Sometimes what I wrote at a given time, can be made redundant, so I would change Fabius Pictor to Cincius Alimentus and yes, the meeting between Hannibal and Scipio, I will admit did happen, but they only met to sign the peace treaty. That is all. Polybius’ version and rational belongs in an Abbot and Costello movie. However, I do not believe Polybius made it up, but was following the works of Cincius Alimentus, who consumed by his hatred of all things Carthaginians, wrote an alternative history of the Second Punic War. I will also add he wrote an alternative history of the Third Samnite War, which includes his trademark of using Roman army numbers for Samnite casualties, just like he did in the First and Second Punic Wars.

[Justin Swanton]

I don’t believe there was a battle of Zama between Scipio and Hannibal.

Wow! (no offence meant) The idea that a contemporary of the Second Punic War could make up a major battle between the two most famous generals of that age - and get away with it - boggles my brain. It's a bit like me writing a history of the Falklands conflict, inventing the whole British expedition, landing at the Falklands and retaking of Port Stanley, when all that really happened was that things were settled between diplomats over tea and crumpets at No. 10.

[Steven James]

Justine wrote:

Wow! (no offence meant)

 

I have no idea as to why you wrote that. I have not been aggressive, just stating my views. Historians have to be objective, not emotional.

 

Justine wrote:

The idea that a contemporary of the Second Punic War could make up a major battle between the two most famous generals of that age - and get away with it - boggles my brain. It's a bit like me writing a history of the Falklands conflict, inventing the whole British expedition, landing at the Falklands and retaking of Port Stanley, when all that really happened was that things were settled between diplomats over tea and crumpets at No. 10.

 

This is the most common response by many who claim the battle of Zama was historical. Some say how such a cover up could occur when there were thousands of Roman soldiers that were present at the battle. It would be too hard to keep them silenced. These people are missing the point.

 

It has nothing to do with changing the history in 202 BC. It can and did happen much later. My conclusion is that Cincius Alimentus, a praetor that was captured and sent to Carthage to work in the fields as a slave had developed a consuming hatred of the Carthaginians. He also when freed had served in the wars with the Gauls and developed a hatred for Gauls. Unfortunately, for Cincius Alimentus, the Second Punic War did not end with a climactic battle in which Hannibal was defeated and Carthage humiliated, but merely with the signing of a peace treaty after the Carthaginians were defeated at Utica. Hannibal and Mago are recalled, and guaranteed safe passage. However, as found in Appian, with the imminent return of Mago and Hannibal to Africa, and combined with Hasdrubal’s army, some Roman senators are concerned that Scipio would be greatly outnumbered, and believed the Carthaginians could then renew the war, so in response they send as reinforcements, Tiberius Nero’s consular army, which Cincius Alimentus converts into a supply fleet of 350 ships to resupply a fleet of 400 ships. The biased slant or hagiographic attitude towards the Scipios throughout the Second Punic War is because Cincius Alimentus is in debt to Scipio for freeing him from Carthaginian slavery.

 

Cincius Alimentus then writes his history of Rome, but when it comes to the Third Samnite War to the end of the campaign against the Gauls, in which Cincius Alimentus served as a praetor, and never rose above that rank, Cincius Alimentus wrote an alternative history that appeased his own anger and resentment. He has a habit of turning Roman defeats during the Third Samnite War into Roman victories, and during the Second Punic War, takes a Roman defeat in Italy and converts it into a Roman victory in Spain. I’ve also found with his large army numbers, he leaves a specific troop out of the calculations, but includes them with his subtotals. This pattern emerges during the Third Samnite War and continues to the end of the war with the Gauls. Have a look at the army numbers between Polybius and Livy for the Roman army at the Trebbia. Polybius is using Cincius Alimentus as his source, whereas Livy does not. We have no comments about how Cincius Alimentus was perceived as a writer by the Romans. His version of events could have been laughed at, we just don’t know.

 

Polybius, being a hostage, and serving with the Aemilius family, could have been advised to use the works of Cincius Alimentus when it came to the Second Punic War. Polybius’ audience was the Greeks, so hey, would they even know right from wrong?

 

The next question is, and an important question, is when did Polybius become popular with the Romans? What time frame? The next writer who uses Polybius as a source is Diodorus Silicus (between 60 BC and 30 BC), and Strabo, also in the first century BC.

 

It would not be the first time in history that fiction becomes fact. The Second World War has such examples.

[Justin Swanton]

I have no idea as to why you wrote that. I have not been aggressive, just stating my views. Historians have to be objective, not emotional.

Sorry, I meant nothing personal by it, just that I've not seen something like that proposed before. I should have put it more circumspectly.      

 

The idea that a contemporary of the Second Punic War could make up a major battle between the two most famous generals of that age - and get away with it - boggles my brain. It's a bit like me writing a history of the Falklands conflict, inventing the whole British expedition, landing at the Falklands and retaking of Port Stanley, when all that really happened was that things were settled between diplomats over tea and crumpets at No. 10.

      

This is the most common response by many who claim the battle of Zama was historical. Some say how such a cover up could occur when there were thousands of Roman soldiers that were present at the battle. It would be too hard to keep them silenced. These people are missing the point.

It has nothing to do with changing the history in 202 BC. It can and did happen much later. My conclusion is that Cincius Alimentus, a praetor that was captured and sent to Carthage to work in the fields as a slave had developed a consuming hatred of the Carthaginians. He also when freed had served in the wars with the Gauls and developed a hatred for Gauls. Unfortunately, for Cincius Alimentus, the Second Punic War did not end with a climactic battle in which Hannibal was defeated and Carthage humiliated, but merely with the signing of a peace treaty after the Carthaginians were defeated at Utica. Hannibal and Mago are recalled, and guaranteed safe passage. However, as found in Appian, with the imminent return of Mago and Hannibal to Africa, and combined with Hasdrubal’s army, some Roman senators are concerned that Scipio would be greatly outnumbered, and believed the Carthaginians could then renew the war, so in response they send as reinforcements, Tiberius Nero’s consular army, which Cincius Alimentus converts into a supply fleet of 350 ships to resupply a fleet of 400 ships. The biased slant or hagiographic attitude towards the Scipios throughout the Second Punic War is because Cincius Alimentus is in debt to Scipio for freeing him from Carthaginian slavery.
 
Cincius Alimentus then writes his history of Rome, but when it comes to the Third Samnite War to the end of the campaign against the Gauls, in which Cincius Alimentus served as a praetor, and never rose above that rank, Cincius Alimentus wrote an alternative history that appeased his own anger and resentment. He has a habit of turning Roman defeats during the Third Samnite War into Roman victories, and during the Second Punic War, takes a Roman defeat in Italy and converts it into a Roman victory in Spain. I’ve also found with his large army numbers, he leaves a specific troop out of the calculations, but includes them with his subtotals. This pattern emerges during the Third Samnite War and continues to the end of the war with the Gauls. Have a look at the army numbers between Polybius and Livy for the Roman army at the Trebbia. Polybius is using Cincius Alimentus as his source, whereas Livy does not. We have no comments about how Cincius Alimentus was perceived as a writer by the Romans. His version of events could have been laughed at, we just don’t know.
      

If his version had been laughed at it would never have survived to reach Polybius. I'll concede that it might just be possible (unlikely, but possible) to switch a battle in the Third Samnite War which took place a century earlier, but there is no way he could have invented the decisive battle of the Second Punic War and got away with it. He wouldn't even have attempted such a colossal fraud knowing it had no chance of being believed. Seriously, no chance. Neither, for the same reason, IMHO, could he have moved any other battles in that war.

     

      

Polybius, being a hostage, and serving with the Aemilius family, could have been advised to use the works of Cincius Alimentus when it came to the Second Punic War. Polybius’ audience was the Greeks, so hey, would they even know right from wrong?

      

Why would Polybius be recommended a writer who was such an evident fraud? And for such major events as Zama, everyone at that time would have known what did or didn't happen. There may not have been an internet, but news travelled.

      

       

The next question is, and an important question, is when did Polybius become popular with the Romans? What time frame? The next writer who uses Polybius as a source is Diodorus Silicus (between 60 BC and 30 BC), and Strabo, also in the first century BC.

      

The real question is why was Polybius taken seriously at all if he reproduced such howlers as fabricated major battles?

      

      

It would not be the first time in history that fiction becomes fact. The Second World War has such examples.
      
Such as?

[Steven James]

Justin wrote:

Sorry, I meant nothing personal by it, just that I've not seen something like that proposed before. I should have put it more circumspectly.

 

My main claim was, putting it in English, Zama was bollocks.

 

Justine wrote:

If his version had been laughed at it would never have survived to reach Polybius.

 

As I explained, we have no evidence of how Cincius Alimentus was perceived by the Romans, nor when his work became mainstream with the Romans.

 

Justin wrote:

I'll concede that it might just be possible (unlikely, but possible) to switch a battle in the Third Samnite War which took place a century earlier, but there is no way he could have invented the decisive battle of the Second Punic War and got away with it. He wouldn't even have attempted such a colossal fraud knowing it had no chance of being believed. Seriously, no chance. Neither, for the same reason, IMHO, could he have moved any other battles in that war.

 

Well I can, and I do provide a lot of evidence of Roman defeats like the Trebbia, having the actions reversed and then appearing as another battle in Spain, in which the Romans win. I have found Cincius Alimentus not to be very imaginative, but I do thank him for basing his fabrications on some historical events. By actions reversed, what historically happened to the Romans will happen to the Carthaginians in their defeat. Mago’s ambush at the Trebbia has been lifted from the Trasimene. The Rhone engagement belongs to the Ticinus, and the Ticinus belongs to the Trebbia. The numbers given for the Roman and Carthaginian losses at the Rhone are the exact number of troops allocated to a consul when on reconnaissance. However, I believe you are not aware of what a Roman reconnaissance force consists of when accompanied by a consul. That is the difference between us. I’ve broken into new ground.

 

Justin wrote:

Why would Polybius be recommended a writer who was such an evident fraud? And for such major events as Zama, everyone at that time would have known what did or didn't happen. There may not have been an internet, but news travelled.

 

Why did Polybius use exaggerated numbers for the battle of Utica in 203 BC? Excerpt taken from my paper: Polybius and the Carthaginian army at Utica

 

(PDF) Polybius the Carthaginian Army at Utica in 203 BC | Steven James - Academia.edu

 

When discussing Publius Scipio’s defeat of the Carthaginian commanders, Hasdrubal and Syphax, at the battle of Utica, Polybius writes: “it is not possible to find any other disaster which even if exaggerated could be compared with this, so much did it exceed in horror all previous events.”

 

Here Polybius is greatly mistaken as the Carthaginian army numbers as provided by Appian, Livy and Polybius himself prove they are nothing but exaggerations. For the battle of Utica, Polybius gives the size of the Carthaginian army as numbering 93,000 men, with Syphax commanding 60,000 men (50,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry), and Hasdrubal 33,000 men (30,000infantry and 3,000 cavalry). Appian provides the smaller figure for the Carthaginian army of about 20,000 men and 7,000 cavalry.

 

The difference between Hasdrubal’s army and Syphax’s army as given by Polybius produces a difference of 27,000 men (20,000 infantry and 7,000cavalry) as per Appian. So how did Polybius or his source arrive at Syphax having an army of 60,000 men? The difference between Polybius’ figures for Hasdrubal and Syphax’ armies is the exact number of infantry and cavalry (about 20,000 men and 7,000 cavalry) as given by Appian for Hasdrubal’s army. (12)

 

So how did Polybius or his source arrive at Syphax having an army of 60,000 men? The answer can be found in Appian’s narrative of the events surrounding the battle of Utica. Scattered throughout Appian’s account of the many skirmishers and Carthaginian troop movements preceding the battle of Utica, and also including the battle of Utica, that detail the number of Carthaginian infantry, cavalry, slaves, Carthaginians killed, Carthaginians that escaped, Carthaginian prisoners and the Carthaginian recruits levied after the battle. These various figures, when tallied, amount to 50,200 infantry and 9,700 cavalry, which has been rounded by Polybius to 50,000 infantry and ‘about’ 10,000 cavalry, and then given as Syphax’s army.

 

Syphax’s Infantry

  6000 infantry (Appian Punic War 9)

  5000 slaves (Appian Punic War 9)

20000 infantry (Appian) Punic War 13)

  5000 dead (Appian Punic War 15)

  1800 prisoners (Appian Punic War 15)

  2400 prisoners (Appian Punic War 23)

  8000 infantry reinforcements (Appian Punic War 24)

  2000 infantry (Polybius 14 6 3)

50200 men (rounded to 50,000 infantry)

 

Syphax’s Cavalry

  600 cavalry (Appian Punic War 9)

7000 cavalry (Appian Punic War 13)

1000 cavalry (Appian Punic War 14)

  600 cavalry surrender (Appian Punic War 23)

  500 cavalry escaped (Appian Punic War 24)

9700 men (rounded to about 10,000 cavalry)

 

In conclusion, Polybius’ figure of 93,000 men for the Carthaginian army at Utica has been arrived at by counting the Carthaginian slaves, the Carthaginians killed and captured before, during the battle, and after the battle of Utica as belonging to Syphax, plus Hasdrubal’s 30,000 infantry and 3,000 cavalry. Polybius’ 60,000 men for Syphax’ s army is a complete fabrication, which, if Polybius was responsible for manipulating these figures, must surely bring Polybius’ reputation of being the most reliable historian into question.

 

Justin wrote:

The real question is why was Polybius taken seriously at all if he reproduced such howlers as fabricated major battles?

 

No, the real question is as I have stated, was when did Polybius became mainstream with the Romans? The next question is why did Polybius reproduce such howlers as fabricated numbers for the Carthaginian army at Utica?

 

Justin wrote

Such as?

 

Hitler won the leadership of the Nazi Party by one vote.

Carrots help you see in the dark.

Japanese troops were experienced jungle fighters

Hitler held back the development of the Me 262

Most Americans volunteered in WW2

The majority of Japanese civilians died from the two atomic bombs.

The atomic bombs convince Japan to surrender.

The Polish cavalry charged German tanks

General Yamashita hid millions in gold somewhere in Manila

The saying “the whole nine yards” meant the measure of a machine gun’s ammunition.

Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk

Germany invaded Russia because Russia was going to invade Germany.

[Michael Collins]

Gentlemen,
As you may have gathered, I don`t think that Zama was complete "bollocks"...
If a large and decisive victory was not claimed at the time, how was it that Scipio qualified for a Triumph back in Rome in the following year - or is that too a fabrication?

[Steven James]

Gentlemen,
As you may have gathered, I don`t think that Zama was complete "bollocks"...
If a large and decisive victory was not claimed at the time, how was it that Scipio qualified for a Triumph back in Rome in the following year - or is that too a fabrication?

The triumph was for his victory over the Carthaginians at Utica, which ended the war.

[Michael Collins]

Gentlemen,
As you may have gathered, I don`t think that Zama was complete "bollocks"...
If a large and decisive victory was not claimed at the time, how was it that Scipio qualified for a Triumph back in Rome in the following year - or is that too a fabrication?

The triumph was for his victory over the Carthaginians at Utica, which ended the war.

Interesting, that might have qualified for a party in Rome

[Justin Swanton]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

[Michael Collins]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

Would proof have to involve finding the battlefield of Zama ?

[Justin Swanton]

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

Re those WW2 examples: none demonstrate that a major battle never took place or took place somewhere else. We need proof that something as significant as Zama could have been fabricated from whole cloth by contemporary writers who were able to convince contemporary readers of of their fabrication.

Would proof have to involve finding the battlefield of Zama ?

     
No. It would involve demonstrating in a convincing way that a major historical event could be invented by writers of that time who succeed in convincing everyone else. I hold that to be utterly impossible to accomplish. It's just about possible to get something across that fools many people for a short period of time (that's what propaganda is for), but that doesn't age well. After a few decades the truth always emerges. And propaganda gives slants to events rather than create them ex nihilo. The Deutsche Wochenshau is a good example of this. The Nazi propaganda machine could not pretend military defeats didn't happen, or that nonexistent victories did, but it exaggerated the victories that did happen and played down the defeats.

[Dan Howard]

https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...?tid=24225

[Steven James]

https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...?tid=24225

Thanks for that link Dan, it saves me time and effort. Now I can just cut and paste my answers.

[Steven James]

Justin wrote:

I'm much more prepared to believe that the primary sources got some of their numbers wrong than that those numbers prove a major battle never existed. I'll go into the details of the numbers for Utica later (a little under the gun at the moment) but enough to say for now that differing numbers for armies and army casualties is pretty much across the board in the sources. It can be difficult, even for a contemporary, to know exactly how many men were involved in a battle. But it is much easier to know that a battle did or didn't take place.

 

But why the need for Polybius to exaggerate the size of the Carthaginian army at Utica? Appian gives a more realistic figure, and the difference between Syphax’s army and Hasdrubal’s army is Appian’s figure. This has been deliberately undertaken. Why didn’t Polybius use the same source as Appian? To answer the question, Polybius has used a source that further glorifies Publius Scipio. A Carthaginian army of a mere 27,000 men just does not do the job.

 

After the battle of Utica, Polybius (14 5 14-15) has this to say “So it is not possible to find any other disaster which even if exaggerate could be compared with this, so much did it exceed in horror all previous events. Therefore, of all the brilliant exploits performed by Scipio, this seems to me the most splendid and most adventurous.”

 

Why does Polybius rate Utica above Zama, when you have to consider that Scipio at Zama had defeated one of the greatest generals of that time?

 

From experience, this discussion will just keep going back and fro. No one involved is going to change their position as those I am in conversation with have their own theories to protect. For me, that is the wrong way to go about any investigation. Theory first, find evidence to support theory.

 

I have made my conclusions on the battle of Zama being a fabrication based on the findings of my research, which I understand, has not been laid out before you. When published, it will show that Hannibal’s army numbers and causalities for Zama have been concocted on the size of Scipio’s army. This pattern emerges quite strongly from the Third Samnite War until the end of the Gallic war. These manipulated numbers will show that the person responsible had a detailed knowledge of the many doctrines of the Roman army. For example, some of the Samnite casualty figures are based on the Roman camp guards. For a period of time, it was standard Roman doctrine to allocate the triarii to guarding the camp. With them were the velites consigned to the triarii and a number of allied cavalry. Many of the cavalry numbers as found in the primary sources only relate to those cavalry on the battlefield, and exclude the cavalry guarding the camp. Some sources give larger numbers of cavalry, which do include the cavalry camp guard. The camps guards can when required by used as an emergency force, as occurred at Beneventum in 275 BC, and Aquilonia in 293 BC. However, the Samnites casualties have taught me that not all were used as an emergency force, a small percentage remained behind to guard the camp. Some of the Samnite casualties have been constructed on the full number of camp guards plus the emergency force (which is part of the camp guards). This is deliberate manipulation. Look at the numbers of Samnites killed for the campaign of 293 BC. Look at how many are not rounded numbers.

 

Aquilonia

20340 killed

  3870 captured

24210 men

Cominium

  4880 killed

11400 captured

    280 killed

16560 men

Saepinum

  7400 killed

  3000 captured

10400 men

 

The 280 Samnites killed are actually the allied cavalry belonging to the emergency force. In 296 BC, we find 2,120 Samnites captured. With a consular army at this time consisting of 2,400 cavalry (600 Roman and 1,800 allied), by subtracting the 280 allied cavalry belonging to the emergency force we are left with 2,120 cavalry, which is converted to 2,120 Samnites captured. Before his expedition to capture Cartagena in 209 BC, Livy states Scipio left Silanus with 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry to protect the region. Polybius claims it was 500 cavalry. We have 3,000 Samnites captured at Saepinum. The 11,400 Samnites captured at Cominium represents two allied legions (9,600 allied infantry and 1,800 allied cavalry) consisting of:

 

2400 velites

3600 hastati

2400 princeps

1200 triarii

9600 infantry

1800 allied cavalry

 11400 men

 

At Sentinum, the triarii from the third legion of Fabius Rullianus are sent to outflank the Gauls and with the triarii are 500 Campanian cavalry. Here you have to understand the writer’s style with the triarii of the third legion also including the allied legion that is attached to the Roman third legion. Therefore, it would be termed the allied third legion. This gives a total of 1,700 men (1,200 triarii and 500 Campanian cavalry. And here we find that Livy reports that Fabius Rullianus lost 1,700 Romans.

 

The evidence I have is copious. What I have found, and can prove without a doubt, is that all Carthaginian army and fleet losses from the First Punic War, the Second Punic War and to the end of the Gallic campaign are all based on Roman army and Roman fleet numbers. Welcome to the world of Cincius Alimentus. Those great Carthaginian fleet losses during the First Punic War are all bollocks, and I am happy to stake my life on it.

 

Events at the battle of the Trebbia has been altered to hide the shameful conduct of the Roman army. Lake Trasimene has been altered to disgrace Gaius Flaminius, and hide the fact he had a very good strategy in place for dealing with Hannibal. Varro gets the blame for Cannae, and not Aemilius Paullus. And most of what happened in Spain is absolute bollocks.

 

Nope, it wasn’t just Zama, that was fabricated, it was a series of events surrounding the Second Punic War that got a good working over. These facts remain unknown to the reader of military events due to academia following the Polybius narrative for far too long. If anyone is looking to do a phd, study the Second Punic War and all its contradictions. It is an eye opener.