The problem with the location of the battlefield in the distant past is in many battles. Does it mean that they were all invented?

The Romans didn't do a monument in Zama. Did they do in Alesia?

Mariusz, you are quite right of course.

Nevertheless, it is possible that many events in the past that we regard as written in stone were fabricated. Most historians declare that events rooted in the past are rarely as recorded then it is simply another step to have an event that never occurred at all.

Scipio was a man on the make after all, and the location of most Roman battles is known. This was the only time Hannibal was beaten by the Romans and the strategy and battle tactics ascribed to Hannibal at Zama have been declared amateurish.

I agree that there have been distortions in the past and history is written by the victors.

I read John Lazenby's book about Hannibal's war. The author wrote that the Roman army at Zama was much better than this from Cannae. Hannibal was the only man.

Yes, of course the Romans learned. As with Napoleon later, the allied armies learnt how to fight and beat him. Hannibal was of course like Napoleon at Waterloo much older and perhaps not physically well.

Nevertheless, Cannae itself, although a great and recognised victory, seems not to have occurred as people imagine-according to recent research.

Dear Stanley Wilkin

Amazing discussion! Do you can give the paper reference for reading?

Best,

Jean, put the authors name in google, but the discussion I found in a history magazine. When I go home I will look for it. The paper itself gained some notoriety when it was published because it raised issues on history and history writing, as to whether and to what extent it is literature rather than science.

As yet I haven't found the article online but here is another one of the author's, on Cannae.

http://www.comitatoprocanne.com/public/CANNAE_article__1.pdf

It's a very brave thesis.

Generally, when it goes to the claims of Mr. Mosig - i don't think so. In antiquity, where we hadn't "information society"and there wasn't economy in the way we have today, the easiest way to gain hegemony in the given areas was by conquest; the so - called diplomacy, avoiding military conflicts involving own forces, and using economical factor to gain superiority was more in the style of later Romano-Byzantine Empire (but of course, i don't say that we hadn't any exaples of such operations before). I think that battle of Zama was a fact - there had to be a decisive battle and Romans were going to crush the military power of a troublesome neighbour.

But when we are talking about falsifications in history, we can easily cross the border between criticism of sources and conspiracy theories. Being careful is always a good thing. The best example is what is actually happening in Poland - there is a large group of people called "Turbo - Slavs" that claim, that we are the oldest nation in the whole world, and legendary people from our history were real: also, they think that we fought with Alexander of Macedon and Romans, and they're basing their claims on one fake chronicle from XIX century.

A good and interesting reply, Zachariasz Mosakowski, but these myths are common to most nations, usually based on founders-political, military and religious. Look at the Nazi German nonsense about Aryans, an Asian peoples, part of a language group. More so since the Germans regularly got beaten by a motley crew of Asians (Huns, Mongolians), Italians, etc.

I am not sure that Mosiq can be dismissed so easily as there is much in 'regular' history that seems disputable, and can we be quite so certain that present era news-reportage history is more reliable? One thing I have noticed is how easily even recent history is rewritten to fit current ideologies.

One last point here: Caesar's victories against the Celts that made his fortune were equal parts propaganda and reality-often he went up against migrant peoples who had little defence against him, committing genocide he wrote up as great military triumphs. He failed against the Ancient Britons but wrote that up as a victory. Could Zama have been something of the same? The Carthaginians were merchants/traders, not part of a militaristic state like Rome and therefore perhaps more pragmatic. They gave Hannibal only limited support and may have put survival first.

Thanks for a reply, there are some points i can agree, and with some i'll allow myself to polemize.

"... and can we be quite so certain that present era news-reportage history is more reliable?" (if I understood your statement wrong - please correct me) - It cenrtainly isn't always reliable, and i risk an oppinion, that it's even less reliable than before. When it goes to present times, we are overwhelmed by information. The first example i thought about in this context was the one about media manipulations from the Yugoslav wars in early 90's - the way the journalists photographed "fake" refugees and the way it was presented in tv etc.

I have to polemize in somehow popular oppinion about Carthaginians telling, that they were only merchants and sailors. There are evidences in ancient written sources (I can check it, if there's need, i wrote about it in my BA dissertation), that warriors in this society were highly appreciated, and the warlords or generals were often decorated with golden rings as prizes for the battles or campaigns they won.

There's also an evidence, that Carthaginian citizens were well-armed and they could quickly respond for a call to arms if there was any threat in the city. (I don't remember for now where i found this information, it could be Conolly, Nic Fields or someone else).

Zachariasz Mosakowski, in comparison with Rome? As far as I remember although their armies were always lead by Carthaginians much of their forces were mercenary. If the Carthaginians were intent on saving the city, they might have compromised. If the peoples around them sensed their weakness, again the Carthaginians might have leaned towards future protection from Berbers and Numidians. The Romans declared that they razed the city (at a later point true) but the evidence contradicts this.

The Carthaginians had been an enemy they never quite beat up until Zama.

Of course they hired mercs, it's unquestionable - among Celts/Gauls, Celtiberians, Iberians, Numidians, Greeks and whoever. But we can't say, that the Carthaginians were only traders at all.

We should also remember to which Rome we are comparing Carthage; in times of the 2nd Punic war Rome was just in it's way to superpower, but wasn't a superpower at all. The huge breakdown took place at the end of 1st punic, after battle of Aegades in 241 BC , and the later peace treaties - and those led Rome to superiority, but we have to remember at what cost it happened - 1st Punic War was an enormous effort for Romans, they've lost a lot of people, and what's significant, a large number of warships.

It's absolute a true statement, that Roman army was well - disciplined, and greatly trained, but the very beginnings of a conflict were not so certain. I can say, that it was forged in battles, and in time became a real machine of war - in this process, the Punic Wars had a great influence.

Yes, I agree they only just survived the Punic Wars, but wouldn't that be even more reason to contrive a battle that Scipio apparently won with ease -a suitable balance perhaps to Cannae, a defeat of immense proportion?

(I have always contended that the Romans, like the British, were never that good in war but it was more that their opponents were usually much worse-Celts, etc, and that until the Parthians they fought hardly any armies as adept as they were. Often both the Parthian and Sassanian armies were too much for them.)

In relation to this question, I've just been marking some ancient history papers and of course the problem is were the historians Suetonius and Tacitus telling the truth about Tiberius and Nero, for example? Were they simply recording gossip or engaging in literature more than the transcription of fact? What was said about Nero was also said about Claudius. Are these just useful complaints without any bearing on reality?

Dear all,

I am particularly interested by HANNIBAL BARCA. And specially by the battle of ZAMA in 202 B.C. It seems to me that the report realized by POLYBE upon that battle is very oriented in favor of SCIPION. I am searching of what could be wrong on this report. In order to progress: I use wargames. I use only traditional wargames with counters (or painted figurines) and maps or boardgames which (I think) are able to produce interesting and credible results. I use different commercial wargames designed by well famed specialist (in order to be sure that I am not favoring the Carthaginian). The wargames operated by computer seem to me that they are not able to produce credible results. I try to demonstrate that HANNIBAL strategy for this battle of ZAMA as described by POLYBE, is not at all at the very high level of HANNIBAL's strategic skill. POLYBE presents that the quasi all Carthaginian army was destroyed (quasi all Carthaginian soldiers: killed or enslaved). For instance: the initial deployment of Carthaginian army as described by POLYBE is very bad: not at all corresponding to the very high level of HANNIBAL's skill. With a better initial deployment of his army, HANNIBAL can win this battle of ZAMA or at least this battle could finish by a parity. My tests realized by wargames confirm this point. For instance, mainly with the modification of a better initial deployment of Carthaginian army, my tests achieve the following results on this battle of ZAMA:

- 1/10 : a great victory of the Roman (similar result to the one described by POLYBE),

- 2/10 : a minor victory of the Roman (different result to the one described by POLYBE),

- 3/10 : a parity between Roman and Carthaginian (very different result to the one described by POLYBE),

- 3/10 : a minor victory of the Carthaginian (totally different result to the one described by POLYBE),

- 1/10 : a great victory of the Carthaginian (very totally different result to the one described by POLYBE).

These are the reasons for which I am very interested to read any paper upon the battle of ZAMA.

Please could you send me a copy to my address: [email protected]

I could in the future, if you wish, send to you my analyses.

Best regards.

Virgile LA LUMIA (Virgile is my actual name)

I believe that by examining ALL the Roman histories we may be able to determine the truth about the Zama campaign and separate the propaganda (Roman and specifically Scipionic) from the elements that are based upon the real events of the war. We should do this, not by just questioning everyhting that is in Polybius` account but by considering the work of others; Livy, Appian and Cassius Dio (via Zonaras).

I have four papers posted at academia.edu if you would like to view my humble efforts in this field.

"Livy`s Lost Battle" is about Vermina`s defeat by Octavius which I associate the description of the terrain given by Livy with the site and the ruins of a Numidian monument at Chemtou:

https://www.academia.edu/41189843/Livys_Lost_Battle

In "Kbor Klib, the battlefield of Zama", in support the work of Duncan Ross and consider the orientation of the monument there as a means of determining the date of the battle of Zama:

https://www.academia.edu/41560526/Kbor_Klib_the_battlefield_of_Zama

In "Scipio`s army of Africa" I try to establish the size of Roman forces (and for the Numidians too) available to Scipio for the late summer/early autumn of 202 BC. And in this estimation I make some allowance for losses, seige works and Roman detatchments made to Massinissa`s army to counter the forces of Vermina:

https://www.academia.edu/42168784/Scipios_army_of_Africa_08_03_2020_1_Final_Draft

In "Polybius the three spies and the forgotten battle of Zama" I attempt to explain how and why Polybius, or one of his sources omitted a cavalry battle and a negotiated settlement and focused instead upon the major decisive battle that essentially we know today to be Polybius` version of the conclusive battle of the Second Punic War:

https://www.academia.edu/44508800/Polybius_the_three_spies_and_the_forgotten_battle_of_Zama_16_11_2020

I hope you`ll find something in these of interest.

Mike Collins.

Mike, they look interesting. I will read at my leisure. Thanks.

If Scipio would have lived in 2021-22, we would have called his Historic account simply "Fake News". The latter was not invented by Mr. Trump but has been adapted for almost 4 millennia to which we have some sort of access. There are many in historical times who wrote what was good for the country in which they lived. Just have a look at what the Pharaohs and Flavius Josephus left behind on walls and in books. Instead of calling it a lie, one could use the words 'mental restriction', this time put on paper.

I have updated my paper on Livy`s lost battle, you can find it at: https://www.academia.edu/81480791/Verminas_defeat_at_Simmuthus_2nd_October_202_BC_Livys_lost_battle

I have also been working on a piece on another location which may be the site of the first battle of Cirta in 203 BC.

Michael,

I will read it at first opportunity.