05-02-2021, 02:57 AM
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.
