"The Battle of Zama where in Tunisia is it?" Topic

Hi i am going to visit Tunisia in Oct this year. I want to visit the Zama battlefield. But where is it? There is some debate on where it is. I will be there for 9 days. So would like to see it. Has any one gone there.

Hi i am going to visit Tunisia in Oct this year. I want to visit the Zama battlefield. But where is it? There is some debate on where it is. I will be there for 9 days. So would like to see it. Has any one gone there.

That's the problem with Ancients. Wikipedia mentions "a flat area to the south of Sicca (modern El Kef), the Draa el Metnan." Britanica says Sāqiyat Sīdī Yūsuf, which looks to be about 25 miles further west on the same road. But the phrasing of both suggests that there's no hard ID of the place name, and no one's found a classical monument, mass graves or bits of equipment, which means they're both guessing.

Might want to look for Fredendal's headquarters while you're there. Maybe an hour's drive further south, and since it took all the corps engineers to dig it into the mountains, it should be easier to find and something to see when you do.

While the location of zama is unknown, perhaps this map and site will be of some value in identifying a possible location.
link

The exact site of the battle is much debated. There are discussions at:

link

link – the Kbor Klib site discussed here at least has a monument to see (the remains of), whether it's connected to Zama or not!

I went to El Kef in the 1980s, hard to get to, train journey and long taxi ride from the nearest passenger station. Very grey/brown countryside (in July). Authentic but for the serious traveller only (things may have changed since then).

Thanks for the mention Duncan!
link
You`ll find my take on the history there.
Essentially, I believe that Appian`s cavalry battle took place there and there was no big battle involving elephants, or over 80,000 men! Another cavalry clash decided the war and that`s to be found in Livy (30.36) and the defeat of Vermina, who was Carthage`s ally.

Essentially, I believe that Appian`s cavalry battle took place there…

A rather eccentric and IMHO unlikely take on the battle of Zama.

Souces other than Polybius or Livy also point to the Kbor Klib area as being the battlefield site.
In my opinion, "unlikely" would be the probability of either commander engaging in a set-piece battle before a cavalry superiority had been achieved.
At the centre of the Polybian narrative is the three spies` story; which was by of the writing of Polybius` history, a 300 year-old, third-hand stratagem, which led to a theatrical meeting which justified Scipio`s and Rome`s recommencement of hostilities.
The context of the conventional historical battle is as highly questionable as are its details.

The context of the conventional historical battle is as highly questionable as are its details.

Remind me please how you explain the end of the 2nd Punic War and Carthage's surrender apart from a major defeat in a conventional historical battle?

Have you already read my papers on Scipio`s army, Hannibal`s elephants, or perhaps the three spies` story?

1. Scipio`s army was not large enough to achieve all the things that Polybian history claims for it.

2. Massinissa and his forces played a more significant role in Hannibal`s defeat. Scipio sought the support of both Syphax and Massinissa prior to his invasion of Africa as the support of Numidian cavalry was essential to success in any campaign in North Africa.

3. Evidence of a large battle is not forth-coming at the best site we have for the battle of Zama. This is at Kbor Klib smaller cavalry actions would have left little trace, but we have two monuments in Tunisia, which are Numidian triumphal monuments; the first is at Kbor Klib and the second at Chemtou, where I believe Vermina`s (largely mounted) army was defeated by Scipio and Octavius.
No trace of large battle or two camps that might accomodate around 70,000 men between them.

4. Polybius` battle of Zama is a literary concoction of several earlier battles: Bagradas, 255 BC Cannae and the Great Plains.

5. For several years after the peace treaty, Rome demanded the extradition of Italian deserters from the city of Carthage. These were from Hannibal`s Italian army and many of them went on to serve in Greece for Philip of Macedon. At the end of the battle of Zama according to Polybius very nearly all of Hannibal`s third line was captured and these supposedly were among the 20,000 prisoners. Most should have been sold into slavery but according to Livy they survived the battle. And so the battle narrative does not fit in with the events after the war.

6. Elephants: these weren`t mentioned by Polybius nor Livy in their accounts of the battle of the Great Plains, but 80 or so turn up a year later at Zama! Hasdrubal had been sent to capture elephants before Scipio`s invasion of Africa, but these would have only had 2 years` training before Zama. This period was insufficient to break and train a war elephant and there is no way that any general would have fielded untrained elephants and trusted them to be deployed across his entire front. Even then, the tactic claimed to have been used by Hannibal at Zama, was unlike any of his earlier deplayments of elephants; these were to one, or both flanks.

7. No conventional battle. The war was won using large numbers of auxiliary forces which were supported by Roman troops. The fighting methods used were not conventional; there was the ambush at the tower of Agathocles, the night attacks on the camps at Utica, a cavalry battle close to Cirta, Appian`s/Zonaras` cavalry battle close to Zama and the ambush and trapping of Vermina`s corps by Scipio and Octavius which was probably also aided by Massinissa.
After the defeat of Vermina (in the autumn of 202 BC) Hannibal had completely lost in the race to achieve cavalry superiority( or even a parity), a set-piece battle was out of the question and so therefore he advised the Carthaginian Senate to accept Scipio`s terms.

So, at Kbor Klib we have a Numidian triumphal monument which celebrates a largely Numidian victory. It was situated deep in Carthaginian terriotry until the late 170`s BC and only became Roman after Juba`s reign ended in 23 BC.

I read some of your material years ago so it is not front of mind at this time. Without debating your points one by one the overall takeaway for me is that it doesn't get us to a Carthage defeat in 201 BC. I find it completely implausible that Hannibal and Carthage yield to Roman demands short of a complete loss of a type like Zama. Hannibal had sworn a oath against Rome, had triumphed for 13 years in Italy, defeated several Roman armies and yet is prepared to stand down his formidable army in Africa because of a cavalry shortage? Really?

Hello Brutus,

Imagine you are in a court facing some charge and the only evidence being presented against you in the evidence that is detrimental to your case. Your defense team also cannot present any evidence proving your innocence as the only evidence they are allowed is the same evidence as the prosecution. You are pretty much cooked, and well cooked. This same courtroom analogy applies to the Second Punic War. In relation to the Second Punic War, all modern historians follow the narrative of Polybius.

Modern historians hold Polybius in high esteem because Polybius was a hostage of the Romans and had accompanied Scipio Aemilianus to Africa and had witnessed the destruction of Carthage by the Roman army in 146 BC. This further reinforces the view that Polybius had witnessed the Roman legion in action, which would make him a reliable authority. Another important reason as to why scholars favour Polybius over Livy is because Polybius lived in a period closer to the time frame of his writing; while Livy lived 150 years after Polybius

And when Polybius' narrative is missing, they begrudgingly have to fall upon Livy. Modern historians follow Polybius because they believe Polybius is the most reliable. However, none have ever done a critical analysis to determine whether Polybius actually warrants his title of most reliable. However, we have been warned that this may not be so.

Livy (39 52) "According to Polybius and Rutilius this was the year in which Scipio died. I do not agree with either of these writers, nor with Valerius." Livy then goes on to give his reasons for not accepting Polybius or Valerius.

Plutarch (Aemilius 16 3) writes: "Aemilius, accordingly, delighted, gave them, not as many men as Polybius states, but as many as Nasica himself says they took, in a short letter which he wrote concerning these exploits to one of the kings, that is, 3,000 of his Italians who were not Romans, and his left-wing numbering 5,000." Plutarch again: "These men (Macedonians), according to Polybius, were still asleep when the Romans fell upon them; but Nasica says that a sharp and perilous conflict took place for possession of the heights…"

Strabo (Geography 3 4 13) writes: "But because Polybius went on to say that Tiberius Gracchus (179 BC) destroyed 300 cities in Celtiberia, Poseidonius (145 BC to 51 BC) makes fun of him (Polybius), saying that the man (Polybius) did this merely to gratify Gracchus, for he called the towers cities just as they do in the triumphal processions. And because this remark of Poseidonius is not to be discredited, for not only generals but historians as well are easily led to indulge in such falsification as this, in trying to embellish the deeds they describe."

The Second Punic War is a mine field of contradictions between the various ancient authors. Polybius has Mago die while returning to Africa, others that he lived well into the 190's BC. Where there is contradiction, there is fabrication.

One of the great ongoing tragedies of modern historians is none have bothered to examine all these contradictions that occur during the Second Punic War. I have been doing this, and a different picture to Polybius' narrative emerges from the fog. It becomes clear that Polybius narrative of the Second Punic War has been based on propaganda, done in order to protect the Scipio name. In fact, following Strabo's statement, it would appear that Polybius gratified any Roman commander in power during his time as a hostage at Rome.

Returning to Michael Collin's position, regarding no great battle being fought at Zama, I am in support. After studying the African campaign, and examining the contradictions between all the ancient historians, my conclusions is this:

Scipio defeated the Carthaginians at Utica, and also captured Syphax at Utica. In order to put more pressure on the Carthaginians, Scipio immediately captures Tunis. Scipio and the Carthaginians begin peace negotiations. The peace terms as first expressed by Polybius (14 1-2) are that the Carthaginians should evacuate Italy, and the Romans evacuate Africa, and both countries continue occupying the countries they held. This would mean the Romans kept Iberia, Sicily and Sardinia. The terms are accepted by both parties, and on hearing of the terms, the Roman senate told Scipio to do what he deemed best. This is reported by a few ancient sources.

Also, part of the peace terms allowed Hannibal and Mago free passage without interference to return to Africa. Knowing the game is up, Hannibal returns to Africa. Now at this point, following the ancient sources, the Roman senate is highly concerned that with the arrival of Hannibal and Mago's armies in Africa, the Carthaginians could elect for war again and attack Scipio. In response, Nero is elected as consul and given the province of Africa with Scipio, something Scipio does not want. Tension between Carthage and Rome intensifies due to Mago dragging his feet and remaining in Italy. To place more pressure on the Carthaginians, Scipio occupies Tunis for the second time (as per Polybius), and from there, prevents food reaching Carthage. In response, Hannibal, at Hadrumetum, sends ships to Carthage as per Appian but they are shipwrecked. This historical event in my opinion is fabricated into a Roman fleet being shipwrecked and the Carthaginians attacking the shipwrecked Roman fleet so as to provide an excuse for the continuation of the war. This is the propaganda version.

With the Carthaginian supply fleet sunk, Hannibal moves to Tunis so as to prevent Scipio from stopping the flow of food to Carthage. This results in some minor cavalry clashes between both armies. News arrives of Mago's return, and following this, Nero arrives, and it is at this point, that the destruction of the Roman supply fleet is actually Nero's consular fleet. Why has no one asked the question as to why the Romans needed 350 supply ships to Scipio's fleet of about 400 ships (as per Livy).

Scipio, now with Nero's arrival, and not wanting Nero to get any glory, arranges with Hannibal to finalise the peace terms that have already been established after the defeat of the Carthaginians at Utica. Both commanders meet between the two armies, each with 10 delegates and peace is made.

When Hannibal captured Saguntum in 219 BC, which started the Second Punic War, the Romans demanded that Hannibal be handed over to them. And yet, after supposedly defeating Hannibal, the Romans don't again ask for Hannibal to be handed over, but later, when he leaves Carthage, are intent on hunting him down.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the battle of the Great Plains and Zama, are fabrications, to show that Publius Scipio Africanus was a greater general than Hannibal. Study both battles and you will see why they have been fabricated.

Now, I know what the response will be, how can there be a cover up? How do you get Scipio's army to keep quiet? This line of question has nothing to do with it. First, ask the question, when did Polybius become mainstream with the Romans? Who was Polybius' source? Was it Publius Scipio's son, who wrote a history of the war, but has not survived the ravages of time.

And what do the ancient sources write about fabricated events.

Livy (8 40 4-5) writes that "I believe that the true history has been falsified by funeral orations and lying inscriptions on family busts, since each family appropriates to itself an imaginary record of noble deeds and official distinctions. It is at all events owing to this cause that so much confusion has been introduced into the records of private careers and public events. There is no writer of those times (322 BC) now extant who was contemporary with the events he relates and whose authority we can trust.

In the same manner as Livy, Cicero writes "these eulogies have falsified our history. Much written in them is fiction, fictitious triumphs, more consulships than an individual actually had, false clan names and false reckonings of some as plebians, since men of lower status have been falsely introduced into unrelated clans which happen to have the same name."

Claudius Quadrigarius (Fragment FRRH2 1 1): "the ancient records disappeared in the sufferings of the metropolis under the Gauls (390 BC); those now available are untrue because of men wanting to please individuals inserting themselves into first families and the most distinguished houses, to which they do not in fact belong."

Therefore, my conclusion is that the battle of the Great Plains and Zama, are fabrications, to show that Publius Scipio Africanus was a greater general than Hannibal. Study both battles and you will see why they have been fabricated.

That is pure speculation on your part. Your whole thesis works only if you disparage the basic sources for the 2nd Punic War, especially Polybius. But you are willing to use him when he confirms your reconstruction but not when it diverges from it. Honestly, what is your historical control or objective markers for your reconstruction. Why not simply discount the whole 2nd Punic War as a fabrication? I don't say that as hyperbole. Once we embark along this path we can come up with any story from the past.

With that said, your analysis is interesting, but it doesn't really explain why Carthage is prepared to surrender its empire when it has a full field army available and its unconquered captain at hand. You didn't really address my critique of Michael Collin's hypothesis so I will state it again.

It seems to me to be completely implausible that Hannibal and Carthage yielded to Roman demands short of a complete loss of a type like Zama. Hannibal had sworn a oath against Rome, had triumphed for 13 years in Italy, defeated several Roman armies and their commanders and yet he is prepared to stand down his formidable army in Africa because of a cavalry shortage? Your analysis doesn't really address this historical situation.

Can you point to serious living historian of the ancient world that would embrace your assertion (ie. that Zama is a fictitious, propagandistic battle report.) Scullard, Lazenby, Sabin, Michael Grant, Goldsworthy etc.?

Brutus: That is pure speculation on your part. Your whole thesis works only if you disparage the basic sources for the 2nd Punic War, especially Polybius.

Actually, it is not my whole thesis. My thesis involves around 60 pages for Scipio's African campaign.

Brutus: But you are willing to use him when he confirms your reconstruction but not when it diverges from it.

One does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. All academic use and disparage the same source. Does not mean the ancient source is 100% incorrect, only when proven.

Brutus: It seems to me to be completely implausible that Hannibal and Carthage yielded to Roman demands short of a complete loss of a type like Zama. Hannibal had sworn a oath against Rome,

Did Hannibal swear an oath to destroy Rome, or is this Roman propaganda?

Brutus: [Hannibal] had triumphed for 13 years in Italy, defeated several Roman armies and their commanders and yet he is prepared to stand down his formidable army in Africa because of a cavalry shortage? Your analysis doesn't really address this historical situation.

The cavalry shortage is Michael's theory not mine. My belief is Hannibal knew the game was up, the Bruttians were beginning to revolt, and his plan to break the allied alliance with Rome had failed. No further gains were being made in Italy by Hannibal, the Carthaginians had also lost Spain, and more and more consular armies every year could be sent to contain Hannibal in Italy, and at the same time send consular or proconsular armies to Africa. The war of attrition was on the Roman side, especially with Syphax taken out of the Numidian equation.

Brutus: Can you point to serious living historian of the ancient world that would embrace your assertion (ie. that Zama is a fictitious, propagandistic battle report.) Scullard, Lazenby, Sabin, Michael Grant, Goldsworthy etc

I'm not interested in what the above historians think of my assertions. I believe most of them follow conventional thinking (the close-minded approach). One of those historians you named, once personally gave me some advice that when writing about ancient history, write in a fashion so that no one can prove you wrong or right. Of the names you listed, I have a lot of respect for Sabin.

Did Hannibal swear an oath to destroy Rome, or is this Roman propaganda?

Exactly why I find your whole historical reconstruction problematic. To bring this level of skepticism to the literary sources is to essentially undo the historical enterprise.

So we have two hypotheses about the end of the 2nd Punic War.

Hypothesis 1 says that the war ended because of the Carthaginian defeat at Zama.

Hypothesis 2 says that the war ended because Hannibal knew the game was up and conceded defeat without a final battle.

I find Hypothesis 2 untenable for two basic reasons. It would require Polybius being involved in a historical conspiracy of immense proportions. And remember this historical conspiracy would have had to be have been done when participants of the 2nd Punic War would have likely still been alive. Certainly the end of the 2nd Punic War would have been accessible to the common memory of Roman society and to intellectual leaders of the Republic (ie. those who write or finance history writing.) How does one concoct a false memory of a battle like Zama only 50 years later. Is there any evidence of Roman historians challenging Polybius' account. Surely a counterfactual of this magnitude would not have been allowed to past muster without some kind of challenge?

My other reason for doubting Hypothesis 2 is that is seems highly unlikely to me that Carthage surrenders without a final test. As I said above, with the return of Hannibal Carthage has its undefeated commander leading a formidable field army. The Romans are in a somewhat tenuous position and the command situation is fragile. It seems far more likely to me that Carthage only surrenders when it has no other choice and that comes after the defeat at Zama, not before.

Brutus: I find your whole historical reconstruction problematic.

In your situation I find your scepticism warranted. However, have you been exposed all the contradictions that can be found in the accounts of the Second Punic War? I can say with some certainty your answer would be "no," for the reason that modern academics have not been interested, or believe it would yield nothing, and therefore, as most read the works of modern scholars, remain uniformed of the many contradictions.

Your belief that Hannibal, with an army would give a contest or force of arms, is just that, your belief. I have already stated mine, Bruttians rebelling, had not broken the allies alliance with Rome, nothing more could be achieved in Italy, and also the Roman peace terms were acceptable to Hannibal and the Carthaginian senate. Maybe Hannibal wanted peace and to leave Italy and regroup, even coming to a realisation that to defeat Rome, he needed more allies, like the Macedonians or the Seleucids.

Brutus: It would require Polybius being involved in a historical conspiracy of immense proportions.

It all depends on Polybius' sources. If Polybius' source was Scipio Africanus son, it will not be an unbiased source, and let's not forget, Polybius' has been criticized by other ancient writes, and let's not forget Strabo's remark that Polybius was capable of falsification:

Strabo (Geography 3 4 13) writes: "But because Polybius went on to say that Tiberius Gracchus (179 BC) destroyed 300 cities in Celtiberia, Poseidonius (145 BC to 51 BC) makes fun of him (Polybius), saying that the man (Polybius) did this merely to gratify Gracchus, for he called the towers cities just as they do in the triumphal processions. And because this remark of Poseidonius is not to be discredited, for not only generals but historians as well are easily led to indulge in such falsification as this, in trying to embellish the deeds they describe."

Also, Polybius was of the Aemilius family and was a hostage at Rome. However, putting that aside, and returning to my unanswered question from a previous thread, when did Polybius become mainstream in the Roman conscious? Diodorus uses Polybius, but Diodorus was 1 century BC. Following Cicero, as a hostage, what if Polybius just wrote a family history, written to glorify the Scipio family and written under their instructions. Did Rome at the time have a mass printing and circulation amongst the public like we have today? The important question I ask, is when did Polybius become mainstream?

In 218 BC, Polybius (3 76) has Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio, the brother of Publius Scipio (father of Publius Scipio Africanus), with a fleet reduced by siege the towns on the coast from Emporium to the Ebro. Gnaeus Scipio then advanced into the interior of Spain with his army and a considerable force of Iberian allies. Near Cissa, Gnaeus Scipio defeated a Carthaginian army, and also Hannibal's armies' baggage, which for some strange reason Hannibal's men did not take with them to Italy. Following Polybius (3 95), Gnaeus Scipio, being wiser than wise, predicting that the Carthaginian fleet would sail to the Ebro, left his winter quarters and with the fleet and the army, moved to meet the Carthaginians, and in a glorious naval battle, defeated the Carthaginian fleet.

However, Appian claims that Gnaeus Scipio achieved nothing of worth in Iberia.

Polybius also mentions that Gnaeus Scipio's army was accompanied by a considerable force of Iberian allies, whereas Livy (24 49), (25 32 1) contradicts Polybius' statement by claiming that Publius Scipio and Gnaeus Scipio used Iberian allies for the first time in 211 BC.

In Livy's account of the exploits of Gnaeus Scipio, which includes greater heroics than given by Polybius, after defeating the Carthaginian fleet, Gnaeus Scipio then sailed to Onusa, plundered the city, and then marched to Cartagena, and ravaged the entire countryside, and even managed to set fire to the houses that adjoined the walls and gate of Cartagena. Livy (22 20) Interestingly, in a similar fashion to the exploits of Gnaeus Scipio, according to Livy, in 210 BC, the proconsul, Valerius Laevinus sailed to Africa, where, the Romans "committed widespread devastation round Utica and Carthage, and that plunder was carried off under the very walls of Utica and the frontiers of Carthage."

Just change Utica to Onusa, Carthage to Cartagena, and you have recycled history applied to the Scipio name.

At the Ticinus, Livy and Polybius have the Publius Scipio's son (the future Scipio Africanus), at the age of 17 years, and in his first campaign, dramatically rescued his father from certain death. Livy adds the majority of ancient authors accept this tradition. However, Livy also mentions another version written by Caelius that has Publius Scipio's rescued by his Ligurian slave.

Having Publius Scipio conveniently wounded at the Ticinus, meant the command of the army on that fateful day at the Trebbia, was given to Sempronius, so Scipio is absolved of all blame, especially when you put in a speech about Sempronius being a hot head, a pattern that tirelessly gets repeated (Varro and Paulus at Cannae).

However, what is interesting is that according to Appian, while trying to rally the routing troops at the Trebbia, Publius Scipio was wounded and almost killed. Nepos has Publius Scipio wounded while fighting for possession of Clastidium, which is on the left side of the Trebbia, and Clastidium was the Roman granary, that had been captured by Hannibal, and this would explain the Roman motivation to recapture Clastidium, plus the fact both Scipio and Sempronius' consulship was coming to an end. So, Appian and Nepos have Scipio at the Trebbia. Again, modern historians are not interested in any other viewpoint than Polybius. Claiming Appian is not reliable, is a simple cop out.

Although what I provided is brief from what I have collected, the pattern that stands out when comparing the contradictions for the Second Punic War, they all surround the name of Scipio.

Here, is an example of the contradictions found for the years 212 BC to 210 BC:

In 212 BC, before attacking the Carthaginian camp of Hanno, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his men to leave all their kit and baggage in Beneventum. In 211 BC, before attacking the Roman camp, Hannibal has his men equipped for rapid marching, which indicates they had no personal kit and no baggage wagons. In 210 BC, Hannibal, marched with his army unencumbered by baggage to Herdonea.

In 212 BC, when attacking Hanno's camp, the Romans are fighting uphill, and in 211 BC, when attacking the Roman camp, the Carthaginians are also fighting uphill. In both incidents, the Carthaginian and Roman camps were surprised when attacked.

In 212 BC, a Roman cohort had broken into Hanno's camp. In 211 BC, a Carthaginian cohort broke into Quintus Fulvius Flaccus' camp. In contradiction to Livy, Polybius has Hannibal surround the camp of the proconsul Appius Claudius Plucher.

In 212 BC, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus' was accused of not having his camp in a defensive position. During his trial, Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus declared in his defence that his camp was not positioned on unfavourable ground. In 211 BC, Appian has the camp of the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus was not well protected, with no wall and only a ditch being constructed. In 210 BC, the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus camped in a position not sufficiently protected, and the camp was not in a proper state of defence.

In 212 BC, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus' was described as being incompetent. In 210 BC, the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus was described as being a careless commander.

In 212 BC, Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus' men at Herdonea lacked military discipline. In 212 BC, the Carthaginians in Hanno's camp lacked military discipline.

In 212 BC, Vibius Accaus, the prefect of the Paelignian cohort threw a standard into the Carthaginians fortifications and threatened his men with a curse if they did not retrieve it. (14) In 212 BC, the primus centurion of the princeps (T. Pedanius) took a standard and when his men followed, victory was gained. In 211 BC, Q. Navius a primus centurion took a standard from the second maniple and threatened to throw it into the mists of the Carthaginians if his men did not follow him. (16) In 211 BC, M. Atilius lead the leading maniple of the sixth legion, and when his men follow, victory was gained.

In 212 BC, when attacking the Carthaginian camp of Hanno, as the defence was stubborn, the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his men to retire. In 211 BC, when attacking the camp of the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, as the defence was stubborn, Hannibal ordered his men to retire. In response, Quintus Fulvius Flaccus ordered his men not to pursue the retiring Carthaginians but to retire.

During his trial, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus declared in his defence that his camp was not on unfavourable ground. In 210 BC, the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus was a careless general, lacked caution, camped in a position that was not sufficiently protected, and the camp was not in a proper state of defence. Here we have the deceased proconsul in 210 BC being accused of not sufficiently protecting his camp, and the praetor in 212 BC being charged with not having his camp on favourable ground, which means the camp was not situated in a defensible position that would provide sufficient protection, that is being situation on high ground.

In 212 BC, when attacking the camp of the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, as a stratagem, Livy has Hannibal sent some of his men able to speak Latin to tell the Roman troops that the camp was lost and to escape to the neighbouring mountain. In 211 BC, in Polybius' account, when the Carthaginians under Hannibal had driven the Romans from the camp of the consul Publius Sulpicius Galba, the Romans fled to a nearby hill.

In 212 BC, Hannibal had 3,000 light infantry. In 211 BC, the Capuans, Hannibal's allies, incur 3,000 casualties. In 210 BC, the consul M. Claudius Marcellus captured Salapia and two other towns, killing 3,000 of Hannibal's garrison troops.

In 212 BC, 7,000 Carthaginians were captured defending Hanno's camp. In 210 BC, at the second battle of Herdonea, not more than 7,000 Romans are killed.

In 212 BC, the senate allocates the primus pilus M. Centenius Paenula a force of 8,000 men. In 211 BC, Hannibal incurs 8,000 causalities, while trying to break the siege of Capua. In 210 BC, at the second battle of Herdonea, 8,000 Romans are reported killed.

In 211 BC, the Roman sixth legion of the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus at Capua is disordered. In 210 BC, at the second battle of Herdonea, the Roman sixth legion of the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus is disordered.

In 211 BC, at Capua, in Livy's account, Hannibal attacks one side of the Roman lines, while the Campanians attack the other side. In 210 BC at the second battle of Herdonea, in Livy's account, Hannibal had one cavalry division attack the Roman camp and the other cavalry division attack the rear of the Roman lines. In 211 BC, Polybius has Hannibal surround the Roman camp of Appius Claudius, whereas Livy has Hannibal in combat with the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus.

In 212 BC, Livy has 2,000 carts in Hanno's camp. In 211 BC, Livy has 2,000 Carthaginian cavalry near Rome. In 211 BC, Appian has 2,000 inhabitants from Alba flee to Rome.

In 211 BC, Appian has the army of the proconsul Quintus Fulvius Flaccus being no match against Hannibal's army. Appian (The Hannibalic War 40) In 210 BC, at the second battle of Herdonea, Livy writes that the army of the proconsul Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus was inferior in numbers to that of Hannibal.

In 212 BC, the primus pilus centurion, M. Centenius Paenula was killed in battle. M. Centenius Paenula is described as being reckless and foolish. In 212 BC, the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus was killed in battle. Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus was also described as being reckless and foolish. M. Centenius Paenula' army was impulsive for battle. Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus' army was impulsive for battle. In 212 BC, when fighting M. Centenius Paenula' army, Hannibal had all the escape routes closed off by cavalry. In 211 BC, when fighting the praetor Gnaeus Fulvius Flaccus, Hannibal had all the escape routes closed off by cavalry.

In 211 BC, at Capua, in Livy's account, Hannibal attacks one side of the Roman lines, while the Capuans attack the other side. In 210 BC at Herdonea, in Livy's account, Hannibal had one cavalry division attack the Roman camp and the other cavalry division attack the rear of the Roman lines. In 211 BC, Polybius has Hannibal surround the Roman camp at Capua.

I know of other accounts in which an ancient author mentions a battle being fought and that other ancient sources claim no such battle occurred. I need to dig them out.

Before one can address your criticisms of Hypothesis 2, I think that answering your question below is necessary: Marcus wrote: "Is there any evidence of Roman historians challenging Polybius' account."

Well, it`s true that later Roman historians did not challenge the big battle of Zama because it had already become an established part of the Roman tradition. The evidence (or rather the testimony) for this is to be found in the parts of histories that Polybius does not include.
Appian`s account of the recommencement of hostilities does in effect, challenge Polybius` history and this is retold by Zonaras after Cassius Dio, but the sequence of events that lead up to the big battle of Zama are altered and incorporate actions that appear at an earlier stage in Appian.
This sequence of events; the cavalry battle, skirmishes, the ambush of Carthaginian reinforcements, the negotiations between Hannibal and Scipio that were mediated by Massinissa, the agreement and armistice that followed, were not present in Polybius history. This is because Polybius` grand battle depends upon Massinissa`s timely arrival and Scipio`s deception and goading of Hannibal to engage in battle in the three spies` story. Although an accepted historical convention of the time, the insertion of a well-known story at this point should cause some serious doubts in the minds of modern historians.
These events were probably part of the earlier Roman tradition of Pictor and Alimentus, but in Appian`s history, we have data and place name information (notably the cities of Partha and Cilla) making an appearance that can only have a Punic origin. The missing link; the intermediary sources for Appian are Coelius and Silenos.
The imaginative influence of Coelius is suggested in the heroic hand-to-hand combats of the generals in Appian`s version of the grand battle of Zama, but Appian`s account of the battle is also a strange mix of grand tactical detail and understanding of Roman command structures (Praetors commanding right and left wings for example) and an exaggerated heroic style which seems odd to modern sensibilities. If we reject historical sources on the basis of style, or their biases, then we risk losing any contextual factual information that they might also contain.
But since Del Bruck, historians have tended to reject and deny Appian`s usefulness as a source for this battle and for the campaign too. And since that time therefore, speculation about the location of the battlefield drifted many miles to the west, because Margaron did not exist and could not be identified and the next best-trusted source, Livy mentioned Naragarra.
So, in the texts where Appian diverges from Polybius/Livy, we have traces of the earlier traditions of Pictor and Alimentus, and with the Carthaginian information and place names we have the perspective of Silenos, who would have referenced Punic public sources. All this would have come down to Appian via Coelius. Even if a grand battle of Zama did not exist in Silenos, Coelius, would not have challenged Polybius, because the two versions of the battle of Zama already existed in the Roman histories.
The central issue here is a bias towards a single source.

Marcus wrote:
"It would require Polybius being involved in a historical conspiracy of immense proportions."

Not necessarily, Polybius may not be entirely culpable; he was preceded by Pictor and Alimentus who both had cause to exaggerate Roman (Scipio`s) claims. Polybius openly warned his readers about Pictor`s pro-Roman bias and warned them not to take his word on authority and without question. Alimentus surely had motive for belittling Hannibal, who was his captor and his gaoler for the latter part of the second Punic War and the attitudes of one these early Roman historians (I suspect Alimentus) may well have resurfaced in Dio`s and Zonaras` works.

Marcus wrote:
"And remember this historical conspiracy would have had to be have been done when participants of the 2nd Punic War would have likely still been alive. Certainly the end of the 2nd Punic War would have been accessible to the common memory of Roman society and to intellectual leaders of the Republic (ie. those who write or finance history writing.)"

Polybius` account; the first of the histories available to us, was written after 150 BC and later edited and extended from 168 to 146 BC. That`s quite late for there being very many living Romans in society who would object to a revision of history or living eye-witnesses to testify otherwise.

Marcus wrote:
"How does one concoct a false memory of a battle like Zama only 50 years later."

Polybius claims to have used Gaius Laelius as his witness for Scipio`s actions, but I believe that Laelius was more probably Gaius Acilius` eye-witness who was active a generation or so before Polybius. So the battle was not concocted 50 years later, the various forms of it had been developed from eye-witnesses who had already put their biases on them – although they have left their traces in extant works, we just don`t have those original,or intermediate sources.
Scipio`s veterans had been well-rewarded with grants of land taken from Italian rebels and a large number of his 7,000 volunteers found themselves "volunteered" for service in Greece after the 2PW. Almost all of Scipio`s troops would have seen action of some kind over the two years` of campaigning: in the siege of Utica, the night attacks on Hasdrubal`s and Syphax`s camps, the cavalry battle at Cirta, the cavalry battle close to Zama, and the destruction of Vermina`s force. Who amongst Scipio`s troops would not have claimed the loot and rewards that were made available to them?
Although some Consuls tried doing it, claiming dubious victories and a Triumph in Italy tended not to work quite so well, but with an increased chance of success in another continent and at a location that was deep within enemy territory for a generation or so afterwards, one might be tempted? You can`t get away from the fact that Roman pride demanded vengeance for Cannae at the hands of Hannibal in Italy and a reversal of the result at Bagradas in 255 BC on African soil. Yozan Mosig is correct in this! And in any case, no one at home in Rome would want to believe in anything other than a decisive and crushing victory over Hannibal.

and for Marcus` second objection to my hypothesis:

Marcus wrote:
"…it seems highly unlikely to me that Carthage surrenders without a final test. As I said above, with the return of Hannibal Carthage has its undefeated commander leading a formidable field army. The Romans are in a somewhat tenuous position and the command situation is fragile. It seems far more likely to me that Carthage only surrenders when it has no other choice and that comes after the defeat at Zama, not before.

From Hannibal`s return to Africa in the late summer of 203 until the autumn of 202 BC much had changed. The Romans (Scipio) had been in a tenuous position until the threat of Vermina`s reinforcement of Hannibal had receded and Scipio himself had a superiority in mounted troops provided by Massinissa.

Although Hannibal may well have been joined by Mago and his army transported from Liguria, the Romans were building more significant forces in Sicily. I agree with Steven James that part of Nero`s forces at least had arrived off the coast at Utica after the battle of Zama, which I believe took place in early September of 202 BC.

By early October of 202 BC, Vermina, Carthage`s main Numidian ally had suffered a major defeat. Massinissa now controlled much of the territory to the west of Carthage, at least as far as Cirta and Vermina was no longer a threat.
Hannibal then knew that he did not have enough cavalry to engage Scipio and Nero`s combined forces in open battle. Without Numidian support, only a static defence was possible. It would only be a matter of time before Carthage would be obliged to accept peace terms and it was preferable to concede this before a siege started and so Hannibal recommended accepting Scipio`s terms. Only a very poor general would have fought on with such a severe and worsening disadvantage. For Rome, a set-piece battle was militarily unnecessary, but Scipio needed a victory worthy of a Triumph.

I wonder how many are aware of this paragraph of Livy (37 48)

After the new consuls had assumed office a rumour, so Valerius Antias tells us gained wide currency in Rome to the effect that the two Scipios- Lucius and Africanus had been invited to meet Antiochus for the purpose of receiving back the young Scipio, and that they were arrested, the king's army at once led against the Roman camp, which was captured, and the entire Roman force wiped out…Valerius goes on to say that it was reported that A. Terentius Varro (Cannae fame) and M. Claudius Lepidus were sent by the propraetor A. Cornelius from Achaia to carry this news to Rome. He (Valerius) supplements this tale by informing us that on their appearance before the senate the Aetolians were questioned on this amongst other matters, and asked from whom they had heard that the Roman commanders were made prisoners by Antiochus and their army destroyed, and that they stated in reply that they had been informed by their envoys, who were with the consuls. I have no other authority for this story, and whilst my opinion lacks confirmation, I have not passed it over as entirely groundless."

For me, a good historian should bring these controversies into their narrative, but unfortunately too many ignore them and just follow Polybius' narrative, sprinkled with other ancient sources that conform to Polybius' narrative. That is why I do not hold historians such as Goldsworthy, Lazenby, Bagnall, and many others in high esteem.

When such controversies are bought into play, the propaganda starts to be exposed. I've been studying these controversies for some years, of which many are crude and obvious fabrications. Unfortunately, these fabrications have falsified our history.

There is a distinct pattern that emerges studying the controversies, and it always involves the Scipio family, and in other matters, Roman defeats. The distinct pattern that emerges is that some Roman defeats, that were disgraceful defeats at the time, are rewritten as courageous defeats against insurmountable odds. The battle of Bagradas in 255 BC is one such example. The Romans faced by nearly 100 elephants; how could they win. Another is the Trebbia, the poor little Romans have not had their Weetabix for breakfast, the fast following and freezing Trebbia River crossing, the treacherous attack by Mago from the gully. Oh, the poor Romans, how could they win. They fight honourably against an enemy that has no honour.

As already stated, these inglorious and disgraceful Roman defeats are rewritten as a heroic defeat, however, what I found is that they are also converted into an enemy defeat in a later battle, but this time, the truth of what really happened to the Romans, is credited as happening to the enemy.

In 1855, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who I am led to believe prevented the English government from getting involved in the American Civil War, wrote "An inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman History" in two volumes. Lewis covering the period from the reign of the kings until the Pyrrhus war, was able to fill two volumes of contradiction. Unfortunately, besides my own, I cannot find another examination of the controversies found in the Second Punic War being undertaken.

A few responses.

1. Contradictions in historical accounts do not give the historian permission to radically reconstruct historical events. That is like saying that because the Gospel writers have differences in their Passion narratives that Jesus wasn't crucified. That is a non sequitur. The list of contradictions in Trojan's previous entry are irrelevant in my estimation to questions related of the battle of Zama.

2. We don't know exactly when Polybius wrote his sections on the 2nd Punic War. Publication is also different from primary and secondary research and it is pretty obvious that Polybius took great pains to find 1st hand sources when possible. A young Roman soldier at Zama would have been around 70 in 150 BC. That is not an impossible age for someone to live to at that time. And certainly there would have been many people alive who knew people who had fought at Zama and could have accurately related their experiences to Polybius. Point being that we have good reason to trust in Polybius' proximity to the historical events at Zama.

3. Both of your reconstructions seem highly speculative to me and your style of argumentation seems to be to simply throw as much information at the wall as possible hoping that some of it sticks. That makes it difficult to engage with because the responder has to sift through the chatter to your essential points. It is important to remember that not all information is equal.

It is worth pointing out again in this discussion that all relevant ancient historians agree that a major land battle was fought between Carthage and Rome at a place called Zama. This battle ended with a Carthaginian defeat and led to Carthage surrendering its overseas empire and paying a large indemnity. While these accounts are problematic at times I see no reason to dispute their essential claim. And interestingly, every significant ancient historian agrees.

Brutus: Contradictions in historical accounts do not give the historian permission to radically reconstruct historical events.

Contradiction allows the modern historian to question the reliability and validity of the source in question, and to then reconstruct events from the more plausible contradictions.

Brutus: The list of contradictions in Trojan's previous entry are irrelevant in my estimation to questions related of the battle of Zama.

You cannot disregard something just because you do not like it. That list of contradictions should make a serious historian question what is fact and what is fiction. Instead, today, all ancient historians are not treated equally, with some being the favourites and others dismissed because they do not agree with the favourites.

Brutus: …and it is pretty obvious that Polybius took great pains to find 1st hand sources when possible…Point being that we have good reason to trust in Polybius' proximity to the historical events at Zama.

link

link

Polybius is only as good as his sources. If his sources are corrupt, so is Polybius?

Brutus: Both of your reconstructions seem highly speculative to me and your style of argumentation seems to be to simply throw as much information at the wall as possible hoping that some of it sticks.

That is not my methodology. I presented evidence for contradictions rather than just ram my opinion on to everyone. Nowadays, most don't read the ancient sources and just rely on the opinions of modern historians, so yes, it is an uphill battle.

Brutus: It is worth pointing out again in this discussion that all relevant ancient historians agree that a major land battle was fought between Carthage and Rome at a place called Zama.

Most followed Polybius as their source. However, many give different army and casualty rates, which, again, begs the question as to why the differences in numbers. And how did these numbers materialised?

link

Brutus wrote: "Both of your reconstructions seem highly speculative to me and your style of argumentation seems to be to simply throw as much information at the wall as possible hoping that some of it sticks."

Beyond the modern, popular rehashes of Polybius` history, there is a lot of information out there to be had. It`s our choice to review these alternative sources and assess their relevance and validity in understanding the events of the Punic War. With the main thrust of the history, I think we find common ground between them they all agree on a large battle, but it takes three distinctly different forms; these are found in Polybius/Livy, Appian and lastly Zonaras (Cassius Dio). Steven has pointed out the statistical differences between them, but it is also apparent in their literary style and their narratives.
We look to how these disprepencies have taken place; their historiography.
We do not need permission to question our sources, nor to speculate on which events seem more or less probable.

You cannot disregard something just because you do not like it.

I don't disregard it (ie. your list of discrepancies) because I don't like it but because I consider them irrelevant to the question at hand.

Most followed Polybius as their source. However, many give different army and casualty rates, which, again, begs the question as to why the differences in numbers. And how did these numbers materialised?

You keep making the same fallacy in my estimation by assuming that mistakes or discrepancies in a source undermines their general reliability. That is not how the historical method works. A work like Polybius' Histories can be generally seen as reliable (which it generally is) and yet contain certain dubious points. I cannot see how we can take Polybius with any kind of seriousness if we allow that he essentially fabricated the battle of Zama (or used sources who did that same thing.)

discrepancies in a source undermines their general reliability. That is not how the historical method works.

Are you serious! Mistakes in a source do determine the reliability of an ancient source. And the historical method followed by academics is to do just that, undermine the reliability of a lot of ancient sources that do not compile with Polybius' narrative. They call it the "favourite" system. If you have ever followed academia histography, you will find that in the 18th century, Vegetius was the man, Vegetius was sacred. Today, Vegetius has fallen from favour, and is given little credibility. So, what changed? Nothing more than the whim of academia.

Brutus: A work like Polybius' Histories can be generally seen as reliable (which it generally is) and yet contain certain dubious points.

Polybius' history has seen as being reliable without any valid examination. There is none, and I have already posted extracts from ancient sources that question Polybius' reliability. From the first book published on the Roman army by Lipsus in 1596 to the present, academia has not wavered in praising Polybius over Livy, as shown in the following three snapshots of historiography examples.

Military Essays of the Ancient Grecian, Roman and Modern Art of War, James Turner, (1670), page 84: "Titus Livius, that famous historian, in his eighth book…marshals the Roman legion in such a confused way, that he is not at all intelligible, and hath given just a reason to both the learned and military men, to think that place is corrupt." Page 95 "Polybius…being a person of so great abilities, as those parcels of his history, yet extant, speak him to have been, and truly we have reason to be sorry that we are robbed of those books of his which all devouring time has deprived us."

A Critical Inquiry into the Constitution of the Roman Legion; Robert Melville (1703), page 1-2: "Polybius, having had the best opportunities of knowing the Roman militia, and having been always esteemed a judicious and accurate author, merits the highest credit…The passage of Titus Livius, relating to the legion, is declared, by all the commentators, to be corrupted almost in every sentence."

Warfare in Antiquity, Hans Delbruck (1908) page 291. "It is true of course, that Livy does make the mistake of giving all three echelons 15 maniples. But a legion of 45 maniples certainly never existed. The original legion of 42 centuries is definitely proved for us by the voting organisation of the century elections, and the relationship between this legion and that described by Polybius, in which there are 1,200 lightly armed men allocated to 3,000 hoplites, equalling 42 centuries, is completely clear."

Taking this idiot Delbruck as an example, who I believe is mathematically challenged, Delbruck has just taken Livy at face value, without any extensive examination. Had Delbruck done some simple mathematical calculations, or had found a six-year-old kid to do it for him, he would know from the sources a legion had 60 centuries and 30 maniples, so a legion 45 maniples could mean that Livy or his source has double counted 15 maniples, which he has, and are the 5 maniples of triarii and the 10 maniples of princeps. Following Polybius that a maniple was over 100 men, which if anyone did more research especially with the naval figures, a maniple has 120 men, and then deducting the 15 maniples of princeps and triarii from a legion of 60 maniples, this leaves a residue of 15 maniples. During the Third Macedonian War, Livy gives the number of hastati for a legion at 2,000 men. Taking 15 maniples at 120 men, produces 1,800 men, which are hastati, and with the inclusion of their officers, increases to 1,890 men, which is rounded to 2,000 men. The end result is there are 1,800 hastati, as per Livy and not 1,200 hastati as per Polybius. However, as academia holds Polybius to be their "precise pretty" whom does not need further examination, academia has been stuck in a 400-year rut. By following the premise that a legion had 1,800 hastati, the process of finally interpreting the hundreds of data surrounding the Roman army in the ancient sources can be accurately deciphered.

link

Brutus: I cannot see how we can take Polybius with any kind of seriousness if we allow that he essentially fabricated the battle of Zama (or used sources who did that same thing.)

It's not a matter of taking Polybius seriously, it's just being aware that he is fallible. A good historian in my book, should treat all ancient historians equally, and be aware that all are capable of mistakes, and prone to sensationalism or corruption.

In some arenas, I have found Polybius to be accurate, especially his description of the levying of four legions. However, it lacks detail when it counts, especially what the batches of four men are that are presented to the military tribunes. Maybe Polybius thought with his reference to 16 years military service it was obvious, as 16 years divided by four means each batch of four men represented a four-year period of military service (0 to 4 years = 1 batch, 5 to 8 years – second batch, 9 to 12 years – third batch, 13 to 16 years – fourth batch).

So, as to present my case, I have presented three links examining Polybius' narrative, care to comment?

Michael: Beyond the modern, popular rehashes of Polybius` history, there is a lot of information out there to be had.

There seems to be some unwritten law that one must not question Polybius. Doing so gets everyone jumping like hot Mexican beans.

Michael: It`s our choice to review these alternative sources and assess their relevance and validity in understanding the events of the Punic War.

When I handed my papers to a board of professors from two universities whom were highly interested in reviewing my research, the moment I handed it over, their persona chance from politeness to contempt, when they told me they would have no problem destroying my research. Days later, I was summoned to a meeting. One professor gave my work back and the only comment I got was "hidden my its simplicity." After he made his comment, he left. I looked at the paper and saw that he had corrected some grammar. Another professor approached and berated me that my research "will ruin the reputation of academics past and present, and was I ready for that." That day I learnt that academics were more concerned with reputations than finding the truth. Later, I heard that the professor who valuated my work as "hidden by its simplicity," cancelled his second printing on The History of Rome.

Michael: We do not need permission to question our sources, nor to speculate on which events seem more or less probable.

Well said Michael. However, be wary of the cancelled culture.

discrepancies in a source undermines their general reliability.

That is not correct. As I mentioned above, the discrepancies in the Gospels do not undermine their assertion that Jesus died by crucifixion. It depends at what level the argument is being undertaken. Discrepancies concerning specific details in Polybius do not undermine his assertion that a major battle occurred at Zama in 202 BC. Your attempt to prove Polybius wrong by making a list of certain potential discrepancies is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Marcus, what exactly is the question at hand?
I believe that we have many questions regarding the credibility of Polybius` version of events.

Brutus: Discrepancies concerning specific details in Polybius do not undermine his assertion that a major battle occurred at Zama in 202 BC. Your attempt to prove Polybius wrong by making a list of certain potential discrepancies is irrelevant to the question at hand.

There comes a time in a discussion when it becomes circular, and that is now. I have been providing information that highlights that Polybius is not the most reliable ancient historian as many think. I have provided criticism of Polybius from ancient sources and links to three papers, all of which you find irreverent. Therefore, it is pointless debating with you, due to your belief that "certain potential discrepancies is irrelevant" basically sums up your position…that I am wrong and that is all there is to it.

If Polybius has been found to have discrepancies, that casts doubt on Polybius' credibility. In a court of law, Polybius would be termed an unreliable witness.

You have your viewpoint, or basically just opinion, so we have to agree to disagree.

Michael, we have to take into account that Polybius may never have written about the battle of the Great Plains and Zama, and that it could have been the work of someone else. If so, Scipio Africanus son then becomes a suspect. Polybius (14 5 14) claims that for the outcome of the battle of Utica, "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 we find that Polybius believed no other disaster, even if exaggerated could not compare to Scipio's victory at Utica. Therefore, Polybius believes Utica is Publius Scipio's zenith, and not Zama. However, Utica was achieved by stealth and deceit, characteristics so unroman, and more Carthaginian in nature. This comment from Polybius could be what Polybius truly believed, because there was no battle of the Great Plains and Zama in his original work. Polybius would have then written on the peace treaty that finalised the Second Punic war, of which the framework would have been incorporated into the forger's fabrication. However, someone did not like Utica being the climax of the war, and wanted Scipio to have victories in the same manner as Hannibal, htereby proving that Scipio was a greater general than Hannibal. And that is why that fictious meeting between Scipio and Hannibal had to be inserted, it comes from Hannibal's own mouth that Hannibal acknowledges Scipio as the greater general.

Step and look at both battles, the Great Plains and Zama, and you will see the two important movements of Hannibal at Cannae. At Cannae, Hannibal's infantry circles the Roman infantry. At the Great Plains, the Roman infantry circles the Carthaginian infantry. At Cannae, the Carthaginian cavalry returns and seals the fate of the Roman infantry. At Zama, the Roman cavalry returns and seals the fate of the Carthaginian infantry.

There are events in the ancient sources relating to the Second Punic War that are more historical accounts of events that have been altered into childish accounts derived from a poor imagination.

If ancient texts cannot be proven to be forged, then they are treated as being authentic. Carolus Sigonius (1520 to 1584) wrote a letter admitting that Cicero's De Consolatione was a forgery. However, this has not stopped some historians from ignoring the possibility of fraud and still quote this work. Maybe they are not aware of the controversy, or just don't care.

Besides many other works on Greek and Roman antiquities, Sigonius also wrote an edition of the Fasti consulares, which should make everyone nervous.

The Historia Augusta, has been exposed as a fraud, but has modern historian believe the forgery was from someone in the fifth century, this made the forgery of some value. There is also a lot of questions about Tacitus' works, and their mysterious arrival on the scene during the Renaissance.

This leaves the question, how much of Polybius' work was written by him?

I agree that Polybius at 14 5 14, has some air of finality about it, and it may lead us to question what follows afterwards – there ceratinly is a discrepancy between Polybius and Appian`s version of the subsequent campaign against Syphax. But it was pointed out to me elsewhere that there then follows a lacuna in Polybius and the missing text may have modified that and after all, Polybius is referring to "all previous events". However, the battle narrative as it appears in Polybius and Livy is questionable in itself. There are no elephants mentioned, and some 4,000 Iberians manage to hold the rump of a Roman army at bay whilst the cowardly Numidians and Carthaginians run away! But most importantly the battle of the Great Plains does not exist in our other sources; Dio/Zonaras and Appian.
The battle is, for me also a fake; a rehearsal, or prototype for the big production of the battle of Zama.

As for the source, I have some reason to believe it was from another source yes, but perhaps someone like Acilius, a generation older than Polybius, who would more likely have had Gaius Laelius (senior) as his "eye-witness". The elephants were an oversight, or maybe they wore dark glasses at the battle scene? Seriously though, if elephants were to reappear and be beaten, Roman pride demanded that they would have to be Hannibal`s elephants, which were known symbols of Hannibal`s power at the time!

Admittedly, the Great Plains has a very sketchy battle narrative, not many details and Livy does not add anything to it, which may seem odd, but then both may have been following the same source and it has a similarity to much of Livy`s accounts of the African campaigns where Polybius is not extant. Much of that, I suspect, may be fairly unmodified from the earlier histories of Pictor, or more probably Alimentus.

Trojan, I see no contradictions in your long list of repetitions, only, er, repetitions. Where does Polybius say a certain thing happened and then says something different happened ?

Dagwood: Where does Polybius say a certain thing happened and then says something different happened ?

Well, that would be a study in itself. I haven't gone back and reread what I have written, so not really sure what your question relates to. However, off the top of my head:

In Book 2, Polybius (2 24 17) claims that Hannibal arrive in Italy with "less than" 20,000 men.

In Book 3, Polybius (3 35) has Hannibal arrive in Italy with 20,000 infantry and "about" 6,000 cavalry.

So, which one is it Polybius? 26,000 men or less than 20,000 men?

After giving the exact numbers of Hannibal's troops in the winter of 219/18, Polybius (3 33 17) asserts that he is not like those writers who invent details in order to lend an air of plausibility to their lies. See the following link to confirm if this is true:

link

Marcus, what exactly is the question at hand?

That a major battle at Zama occurred in North African between the Romans and Carthaginians that led the surrender of Carthage.

After giving the exact numbers of Hannibal's troops in the winter of 219/18, Polybius (3 33 17) asserts that he is not like those writers who invent details in order to lend an air of plausibility to their lies. See the following link to confirm if this is true:

Again, I just want to remind you that any discrepancy in numbers in Polybius is irrelevant the question of whether there was a major land battle in North Africa in 202BC that brought the 2nd Punic War to a completion. For example, in the Book of Acts, Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is described three times. In each version there are different details and even potential contradictions. The discrepancies are interesting but no serious NT historian would deny Paul's encounter with Jesus on the basis of these differences. In the same way, small factual differences in Polybius in no way undermines his overall narrative.

Brutus: Again, I just want to remind you that any discrepancy in numbers in Polybius is irrelevant the question of whether there was a major land battle in North Africa in 202BC.

Dagwood's question was "Where does Polybius say a certain thing happened and then says something different happened." Where was Dagwood's question specifically referring to Zama?

I was using Zama as an example of why your line of argument fails for me.

But let me ask you this. In the example above of two different numbers given by Polybius in Hannibal's return force to Africa (20000 and 26000) do you think that Polybius was aware of this difference or was it something that slipped by him? If it is the former why did Polybius use two different numbers?

Brutus: For example, in the Book of Acts, Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is described three times. In each version there are different details and even potential contradictions. The discrepancies are interesting but no serious NT historian would deny Paul's encounter with Jesus on the basis of these differences. In the same way, small factual differences in Polybius in no way undermines his overall narrative.

You have brought this example up a few times. Just because three sources describe Paul's conversation, albeit contradictory, does not prove that Jesus existed, or that he was the son of God. Faith is not proof.

Brutus: But let me ask you this. In the example above of two different numbers given by Polybius in Hannibal's return force to Africa (20000 and 26000) do you think that Polybius was aware of this difference or was it something that slipped by him? If it is the former why did Polybius use two different numbers?

For the figure of less than 20,000, I believe Polybius used another source, possibly Alimentus. Again, link provided to show how the figure of less than 20,000 men can be obtained, which works out to 18,000 men, which is a discrepancy of 8,000 men, which just happens to be the number of Carthaginian light infantry that suddenly appear at the Trebbia. Should Trebbia be spelt with one T or two T's?

link