"Were there Macedonians at Zama?" Topic

I have read several sources that say yes and several no. The sources that say yes seem to be based on Livy. There are several different sources that say no. What's your take on it? If you think that Macedonians were present and fighting for Hannibal were they pike, auxiliary troops, or skirmishers?

No. I don't believe there were. Something that significant would have better evidence than just Livy. But, play the battle both ways and see which gives a better match to history.

Hi.

When describing the cartaginian order of battle at Zama, Livy mentions a macedonian "legion" in the second line, alongside with the cartaginian and the african contingents (Livy 30.33). These macedonians aren't mentioned afterwards, in the account of the battle itself, when only cataginians and africans are refered in the second line.

In case there were macedonians, their equipment and combat role should be similar to those of the cartaginians and africans of the second line, and to the hastati, principes and triarii on the roman side. They were not skirmishers (only were in the first line) nor phalangites, should this had been remarked (as it is done in other accounts), and they had not been referred as a "legion", but as the phalanx.

Livy tells us about macedonian reinforcements and funds to Hannibal and the Cartaginians (Livy 31,1) at the time it would make sense the presence of macedonian troops at Zama.

So, there are reasonable pieces of evidence of the presence of macedonians at Zama, according to Livy's account, but I think they are far from being conclusive.

Hope it helps.
Enric.

Perhaps it is not unrelated to Rome's attacks against the Macedonians. Livy is not exactly Mr Heutral here.

Duncan Head in 'Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars' said about Livy's claims:

'Macedon was now at peace with Rome, and since King Philip had not ventured to support Cartage even when he was winning he was hardly likely to star now. In any case, he could not have transported troops to Africa as Rome controlled the sea, and his own fleet was fully engaged elsewhere.'

This would seem to make sense.

Could these troops have been Greek refugees/mercenaries and given a generic name of Macedonian.

The Romans wanted there to be Macedonian troops at Zama as a pretext for going after Macedon.
Livy as usual provides the pretext for Roman aggression.

Dexter, I think you mean Roman peace, order and running water rather than aggression. Anyway it's been a couple of thousand years….

Gentlemen I appreciate your responses.

Agree with Lewisgunner and Dexter. Livy has been known to- if not re-write history like some of his sources – at least bend history to provide pretext for the next wave of Roman aggression (and just for disclosure, I'm a ROman player). He does this by leaving out inconvenient things or exaggerating others that leave the Romans in a better light.

Notably against Carthage (and this comes from A Critical History of Early Rome by Gary Forsythe), Livy excuses the Roman intervention in Sicily (and thereby a violation of their treaty respect each other's sphere of influence) by bringing up that the Carthaginians first violated the treaty by sailing into Roman territory, when in fact the Carthaginians were there in agreement with ROme to assist against Pyrrhus (which he even has the ROman senate refusing assistance to cover up even the fact that they agreed to Carthaginian aid). Livy may not lie as badly as some of the other Roman "historians" from which he drew material, but sometimes he's not far from it. You really have to inspect what he wrote and ask questions. I'd bet that the Macedonian presence is a fabrication.

Maybe Livys reference to Mecedonian was more a reference to 'Greeks' rather than strictly 'Macedonian', I haven't refreshed my memory of the sources but wasn't the greek peninsula referred to as Macedon at that time? If so, there might of been a greek presence in Hannibals army, Thorakatai or Thureophoroi style troops are probably well in what Hannibal favoured.

Rellik,

I think that's a pretty good bet that there were some. I guess I didn't specify but I was referring to 4 to 5 thousand Macedonian pike that Livy attributed to Hannibal at Zama. Once again, I thank everyone for the responses.

Pike… That could open up a whole can of worms.

Hi Defender1,

Where do you read about 4-5 thousand macedonian phalangites at Zama? Not at Livy, I think.

Livy is not Mr. Neutral. Not a reason to disregard everything he writes, anyway. Rob, Dexter and Andy have given good reasons for doubting from Livy's words. But I can't see real evidences for or against Livy's words in this case.

Enric.