Paullus responsible cor Cannae? Hannibals loss a tragedy? Compeliing revisionist theories...

[CatoTheYounger]

REVISION AND RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE BATTLES OF
CANNAE (216 BCE)
AND
ZAMA (202 BCE)
Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen
University of Nebraska at Kearney
2
Revision and Reconstruction in the Punic Wars: Cannae Revisited.
Yozan D. Mosig and Imene Belhassen

The history of the wars between Carthage and Rome was rewritten by two pro-Roman historians,
Polybius and Titus Livius. The former, while usually more reliable, revised facts that would have
shown his employers, the Scipionic/Aemilian family, in an unfavorable light, while the latter, a
clear Roman patriotic propagandist, embellished history to suit his purposes. Accounts of the
wars by Carthaginian historians seem to have been lost or been conveniently destroyed.
Nevertheless, gaps and contradictions in the Roman accounts, together with a modern
understanding of human motivation and environmental circumstances, allow for the
reconstruction of the original events. A case in point is the battle of Cannae, in 216 BCE, where
a modern analysis reveals the real reasons for Hannibal’s victory, the true strengths of the armies
of Romans and Carthaginians, the identity of the actual commander of the Roman forces, the
correct casualty figures, and the likely reasons for Hannibal’s refusal to march on Rome
following his great victory.
4
The battle of Cannae, between the multi-ethnic forces of the Carthaginian general
Hannibal Barca and the much larger Roman army under the command of consuls Lucius
Aemilius Paulus and Gaius Terentius Varro, in 216 BCE, was without a doubt one of the most
significant battles in history. Nevertheless, many important details of this engagement remain
uncertain and controversial. This paper proposes a reinterpretation of several critical factors in
the conflict: the actual size of the opposing armies, the identity of the Roman battle commander,
the numbers of casualties, the reason behind Hannibal’s strategy and amazing victory, and the
factors that precluded Hannibal’s marching against Rome immediately at the conclusion of the
battle. The methods of logical inference, internal consistency, and psychological analysis, will be
used to support our conclusions.
History was written by the victors. Nowhere is this dictum truer than in the case of the
three wars waged between Carthage and Rome (264-241, 218-201, and 149-146 BCE). Even the
name by which these conflicts are known reflects a Roman bias: Punic Wars. Surely historians in
the maritime and mercantile city-state of Carthage would have referred to the conflicts as Roman
Wars. As it is, historical records that were produced by the Carthaginian side have been totally
obliterated or lost, and most of what we have was penned by pro-Roman sources. Of these
sources, the two most important ones are the accounts of Polybius and Livy (Titus Livius).
Polybius was Greek. He lived from approximately 200 to 118 BCE, and thus was alive
only through the course of the third war, which he was able to witness first hand. A military man,
he was enslaved by the Romans, and came to serve the Aemilian/Scipionic family, becoming
friend and mentor of Scipio Aemilianus, the destroyer of Carthage. He wrote about 50 years after
Cannae, and his works are generally regarded as more reliable than those of Livy (e.g., Lancel
47-51; Barcelo 279; Seibert 1993a 1-2, 1993b 44-52). Apparently he made an effort to retrace
5
Hannibal’s steps over the Alps and interviewed survivors of the second war. Nevertheless, his
objectivity and accuracy becomes suspect when he writes about members of the family he
served.
Livy lived from 59 BCE to 17 CE (or 64 BCE to 12 CE). He was essentially a Roman
moralist and propagandist, whose historical accounts, although beautifully written, contain many
fictionalized incidents, such as speeches (which he pretends to quote verbatim) and anecdotes,
clearly invented to embellish the record and provide an inspirational and patriotic narrative for
his Roman audience. Closer to a novelist than to an objective chronicler of the past, his history of
Rome and the Punic Wars is less reliable than that of Polybius, and should be used only with
great caution and reluctance to fill gaps in the incomplete Polybian account.
In what follows, we will consider a series of problem areas that emerge from an
examination of the historical accounts of the battle of Cannae provided by Polybius and Livy.
1. The Size of the Opposing Armies.
After being defeated in the cavalry encounter at the Ticinus river (218
BCE), at the battle of the Trebia (218 BCE), and at Lake Trasimenus (217 BCE), the Romans
decided to raise a massive army to get rid of Hannibal once and for all. Polybius (3:107) tells us
that the Romans recruited eight legions, to be matched by an equal number of legions from their
Italian allies, and that the numerical strength of each legion was increased from 4,000 to 5,000.
Consequently, the size of the infantry forces marshaled by the Romans totaled 80,000. This
number is usually accepted as valid by most historians. The question, though, is the size of the
cavalry complement of each legion, and the total strength of the Roman horse. Since the previous
defeats of the Romans had been a direct result of the numerical superiority of the Carthaginian
horse, it stands to reason that in recruiting cavalry complements for their enlarged legions, the
6
Romans also increased the size of the equestrian forces accompanying each legion, probably
from 200 to at least 300, or perhaps even 350 or 400. Polybius (3:107) states that “on occasions
of exceptional gravity” the Romans increased the size to 300, and that the numbers of the allied
cavalry were required to be “three times as numerous as the Roman.” Hannibal’s successive
defeats of three Roman armies certainly constituted an “occasion of exceptional gravity,” for the
very survival of the Republic seemed to be at stake, and it makes sense to assume that the
cavalry, whose weakness had contributed to the previous defeats, was particularly strengthened.
Polybius indicates elsewhere (4:25) that a typical legion of his day included 300 horse riders
(rather than 200), which makes an enhanced figure of 400 for “special occasions” even more
likely. If we use the figure of 400 per Roman legion (or a total of 3200 for the eight legions
raised for the battle), and triple that number, counting the strength for each allied legion as 1,200
(giving a total of 9,600), we arrive at a combined cavalry of 12,800. This would mean that the
Romans not only outnumbered Hannibal’s infantry forces (which consisted of 40,000) two to
one, but also held numerical superiority in cavalry (Hannibal’s numbering 10,000). Even if we
accept only an increment for “occasions of exceptional gravity” of 300, this would give us 2,400
(300 x 8) Roman and 7,200 (900 x 8) allied cavalry, or a total of 9,600. The Romans had at least
practical numerical equality with Hannibal’s horsemen.
Polybius (3:107), though, lists the strength of the Roman horse only as “over 6,000.”
Why this discrepancy? Perhaps one reason can be found in the fact that the Romans consistently
rationalized their defeats by attributing them to Hannibal’s superior cavalry numbers, so that
accepting that they actually held superiority, or at least parity, in cavalry, at the moment of their
greatest disaster, would have made their defeat that much more shameful. The Romans regarded
themselves as the best warriors of their time, and Hannibal’s victories needed to be explained
7
away in order to maintain that self-image. While necessarily recognizing his genius (for how
could they have been defeated by a lesser general?), they needed a way to excuse and justify
their own failure.
Some (e.g., Daly 74-75) have argued that the larger numbers for the Roman horse are
unlikely because “early encounters between Roman and Numidian cavalry suggest no significant
qualitative difference between the two” and that therefore “the annihilation of the citizen cavalry
at Cannae can be largely explained by their being greatly outnumbered.” As we will see below,
though, there was a different reason for the defeat of the Roman and allied horse, which did not
preclude their actual numerical superiority. It can also not be argued that the Romans would not
have been able to raise a larger cavalry force due to a shortage of horses or riders, for even after
Cannae they continued recruiting cavalry contingents for scores of legions.
2. The Command of the Roman Army at Cannae.
Although two consuls, Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Gaius Terentius
Varro, were in charge of the largest army Rome had ever raised, they alternated actual command
day by day. Who was in command the day of the battle, and who was, therefore, responsible for
the worst defeat in Roman history? Polybius (3:113) and Livy (22:45), who essentially copies
Polybius here, state that it was Terentius Varro’s turn to take command on that fateful day of
August 2, 216 BCE. Aemilius Paulus is described as being reluctant to engage, and Varro’s
rashness has been blamed for the disaster. But the evidence suggests otherwise. As Seibert
(1993a 192) has pointed out, the consul in command would have traditionally led the right wing,
where the Roman horse (the equites) were placed. It was Aemilius Paulus who was in this place
of honor. Varro, on the other hand, was in charge of the left wing, that of the allied cavalry. It
was Aemilius Paulus who can therefore be identified as the consul in command that day. As an
8
employee of the Aemilian family, Polybius would have had the motivation to disguise this fact
by blaming Varro instead, in order to protect the reputation of Aemilius Paulus. Two additional
facts support the contention that Paulus, and not Varro, was in command. After being wounded,
Paulus was offered the opportunity to escape from the field, but chose to stay and face certain
death, which would be consistent with the shame he would have experienced at the unfolding
disaster, had it been his responsibility. Varro, on the other hand, was able to escape with a small
number of surviving allied horse, and upon returning to Rome was received with open arms and
congratulated for not having despaired of the Republic (e.g., de Beer 216). Had he been the
commander responsible for the annihilation of Rome’s greatest army, it is highly unlikely that he
would have enjoyed such a reception! The Romans notoriously did not reward their failed
generals, much less assign them to further military commands, as was later the case with Varro
(Dodge 411, 428). We must conclude that Lucius Aemilius Paulus, and not Varro, was the
Roman commander at the battle of Cannae.
3. The Reasons for Hannibal’s Victory at Cannae.
The deployment of forces on the plain of Cannae, to the right of the
Aufidus (now Ofanto) river, close to the modern city of Barletta, in southeastern Italy, seems to
have been as follows. The Roman horse, numbering 2,400 (or 3,200, if we accept the
enhancement of 400 per legion) was on the right wing, commanded by Aemilius Paulus. The
allied cavalry, numbering 7,200 (or 9,600), formed the left wing, and was under the command of
Terentius Varro. The center, led by Minucius and Servilius, consisted of the massed infantry
forces, placed in more compact and deeper formation than was usual for a Roman army. Their
number was 80,000 minus the forces left to guard the Roman camps on both sides of the river.
The front line consisted of skirmishers. The Roman army faced south.
9
Hannibal’s army faced north, and it also had cavalry contingents on both flanks. On the
Carthaginian left wing, facing the 2,400-3,200 Roman equites, Hannibal placed his 6,000-strong
heavy Celtic and Iberian horse, led by Hasdrubal (no relation to Hannibal’s brother by that
name). On the right wing he deployed the Numidian horse, led by Hanno (or Maharbal),
numbering 4,000, and facing the 7,200-9,600 allied horse. In the center he placed his infantry,
some 40,000 (minus forces left to defend his camp on the left side of the river). They consisted
of Gauls interspersed with contingents of Iberians, plus his African veterans (5,000 on each side)
as a reserve force. The Carthaginian center formation advanced as a convex semicircle (as seen
from the Roman side). In front was a line of skirmishers.
Hannibal had to have planned his troop deployment well before the battle, it could not
have been an improvisation conceived on the spot as the Roman army was moving into place.
Why did Hannibal choose to position his forces as he did? What was the fatal flaw he recognized
in the Roman formation, and how could Hannibal have predicted it?
It can be argued that what did the Romans in was, above all, their elitism. Hannibal knew
that the Roman nobility would ride on the right, and not together with their “lesser” peers, the
Italian allies. If the Romans had divided their total cavalry into two equal forces, deployed on
either side of the field, the outcome of the battle might have been quite different. But they
predictably placed the smaller elite Roman force on the right, and Hannibal was able to deploy
against them the heavy Celtic and Iberian horse under Hasdrubal, outnumbering them by more
than two to one, and practically assuring victory on that side.
It is important to note that Hannibal’s total cavalry force consisted of two totally different
equestrian contingents: Celtic/Iberian and Numidian. The heavy Celtic and Iberian riders formed
a shock force that would crush their outnumbered Roman counterparts, the cavalry battle
10
becoming compacted between the river and the Roman right infantry flank, to the point that
riders would have to dismount in order to fight, lacking sufficient room to maneuver. The
Numidian horse, on the other hand, which Hannibal placed on his own right wing, was a highly
mobile force, specializing in hit and run clashes, and its riders were arguably the best in the
world at that time. Their tactics involved advancing and retreating, circling and changing
directions, closing in to strike and immediately withdrawing too far away to be struck. They
were the ideal forces to harass and keep busy the larger contingent of allied horse on the Roman
left, who were unable to match the agility of the Numidians.
As the Celtic and Iberian horse routed the Roman cavalry, rather than chase after the few
survivors, the disciplined riders under Hasdrubal rode swiftly behind the battlefield to fall upon
the allied horse at the opposite side, the forces kept in check by the harassing Numidians. The
allied cavalry under Varro broke, and his riders fled from the field with tremendous losses, being
chased by the Numidians. Meanwhile, the heavy horse under Hasdrubal wheeled around once
again and fell upon the back of the Roman army. In the meantime, Hannibal had sprung a trap he
had hidden in plain sight.
It is tempting to regard the choice of a flat plain, such as that at Cannae, as terrain for the
great battle, a blunder on the part of Paulus or Varro, because it was ideal for the
maneuverability of Hannibal’s formidable cavalry. But the Romans had an important reason to
choose to do battle on an open plain: it precluded the hiding of forces for an ambuscade, a
Hannibalic tactic that had resulted in heavy Roman losses at the Trebia and at Lake Trasimenus
(where Hannibal actually managed to hide his entire army in ambush!). Since on the plain of
Cannae no ambuscade was possible, the Romans were confident that their massive numerical
superiority would guarantee them victory. They were not bothered by the fact that cavalry could
11
operate effectively on such terrain, for, after all, they had now equestrian equality or even
superiority. For this reason, the story of Paulus and Varro disagreeing on the location of the
battle is, in all likelihood, fictitious.
The battle plan of the Romans clearly intended to puncture through the Carthaginian
center with their massive phalange-like infantry force, and to envelope the defeated Carthaginian
forces to the right and left of the broken center. But their expectations did not come to be. The
genius of Hannibal allowed him, not only to use the predictable Roman elitism to defeat their
cavalry, but to achieve the apparently impossible, the total envelopment of the larger army by his
much smaller one, and the complete annihilation of the enemy.
By advancing his troops in a convex arc, Hannibal ensured that the initial engagement
between the advancing Roman phalange and his forces was concentrated in the very center, so
that the Romans not in the immediate center would be drawn to it, in order to be able to engage,
compacting their army more and more towards the middle. Although his Gauls and Spaniards
were, to an extent, his weakest and most expendable forces, Hannibal himself, together with his
brother Mago, commanded the center, and made sure that the Carthaginian army gradually
pulled back in an orderly fashion, making the convex front gradually straight, and then actually
concave. The huge Roman force, undoubtedly believing they were winning, continued to
advance into the sack-like trap formed by the gradually withdrawing Carthaginian forces. At the
critical moment, the elite African veterans Hannibal kept in reserve, 5,000 on each side, wheeled
in, and attacked the flanks of the trapped Roman army, stopping its advance, as in the arms of a
vise, pressing the Romans together more and more, until they were hardly able to move. Any
possibility of retreat was blocked by Hasdrubal’s horsemen at the rear. The Carthaginian center
did not break, and reversed its retreat as the Roman army became gradually immobilized. Only
12
soldiers at the borders of their trapped force could fight at all, and even they had insufficient
space to wield their swords. Meanwhile, those in the center were essentially sentenced to wait for
their turn to die. Within a few hours, the greatest army Rome had ever raised was no more.
Hannibal’s victory was the result of a number of factors: Roman elitism and
predictability, the agility of the Numidian cavalry, the discipline of all of his forces, who were
able to implement his master plan in clockwork fashion, and, above all, his own tactical and
strategic vision. His victory most certainly did not depend on luck, nor was it the result of the
incompetence of Aemilius Paulus, and much less of Varro, nor of the Volturnus wind that was
said to be blowing in the faces of the Roman soldiers. The fatal flaw was also not the Roman
practice of alternating daily command. What doomed them at Cannae was ultimately their own
arrogance and the genius of their greatest adversary.
4. The Casualty Figures at Cannae.
Polybius (3:117) states that only 70 of the allied cavalry managed to escape with Varro
and that 300 others “reached different cities in scattered groups.” He further indicates that some
10,000 Romans were captured, “but not in the actual battle, while only perhaps three thousand
escaped from the field to neighboring towns.” He adds; “All the rest, numbering about seventy
thousand, died bravely.” As for Hannibal’s losses, Polybius lists “about four thousand Celts,
fifteen hundred Spaniards and Africans, and two hundred cavalry,” or a total of 5,700. Livy
(22:49), on the other hand, gives a lesser figure for the Roman losses (about 50,000) and a larger
for the Cartaginian dead (8,000). Some historians (e.g., Goldsworthy, 2001; Daly, 2002) have
balked at accepting the Polybian figures, because they seem larger than possible if one assumes
that the Romans had only 6,000 cavalry. Their total strength would have been 80,000 infantry
plus 6,000 horse, or 86,000, and Polybius’s figures, 70,000 fallen, plus 10,000 prisoners, plus up
13
to 10,000 survivors, total about 90,000. But we have already established that the real cavalry
strength of the Roman army at Cannae was in all likelihood somewhere between 9,600 and
12,800. Taking these revised figures into account, Polybius’s casualty numbers seem quite
plausible, and no contradiction exists. In view of the overall greater reliability of Polybius’s
account over Livy’s, it seems reasonable to accept that, indeed, 70,000 Romans and a little over
5,000 of Hannibal’s men died on the plain of Cannae, on August 2, 216 BCE.
5. The Reasons for Hannibal not Marching Against Rome in the Aftermath of Cannae.
Much has been made of Hannibal’s apparent failure to capitalize on his victory at Cannae
by marching immediately against Rome, after the annihilation of its greatest army, and thus
ending the bloody conflict with the sacking of the city on the Tiber. This alleged failure is the
subject of an often quoted anecdote, in all likelihood fictitious, in which Maharbal, commander
of the Numidian cavalry, urges Hannibal in vain to march without delay against Rome, telling
him: “In five days you shall banquet in the Capitol! Follow after; I will precede you with the
cavalry that the Romans may know that you are there before they know that you are coming!”
Upon Hannibal’s refusal, he rebukes him by saying: “In very truth the gods bestow not on the
same man all their gifts; you know how to gain a victory, Hannibal: you know not how to use
one” (Livy 22:51). Livy presented this bit of nonsense to bolster his own thesis: “That day’s
delay is generally believed to have saved the City and the empire” (22:51). As Seibert (1993a,
199) has pointed out, the Roman origin of this story is clear from the reference to “banqueting in
the Capitol,” for Maharbal could hardly have known that this was customary for a returning
victorious Roman general!
14
But was Hannibal’s “failure” to march on Rome indeed a blunder? Why did he choose
not to proceed toward the capital of his enemies, after his greatest victory? We will attempt to
answer the second question first.
Hannibal was born into a culture quite different from that of Rome. Carthage was a
maritime merchant city-state, ruling over commerce in the Mediterranean world. The philosophy
of a business-oriented realm is typically not militaristic, for war functions as an impediment
rather than a facilitator of commerce. Conflicts and disagreements tend to be settled by trade,
negotiation, and compromise, rather than by war, violence, and destruction. The historical record
suggests that although Carthaginians were able to wage war when necessary, they were not a
warlike society. When circumstances forced armed conflict, they preferred to hire mercenaries to
do the fighting for them. Mercenaries can be hired, paid, and dismissed. The Carthaginians did
not maintain a regular citizen army. When given a choice, they preferred a negotiated peace to
violent conquest. Being a product of a mercantile society, the character of Hannibal, the man,
must have been affected by this social background.
Hannibal was an educated man. He was able to communicate in many languages, among
them Greek, and it is likely that he was well read in the Greek classics. One of his tutors,
Sosylos, was from Sparta, and another, Silenos, was a Greek from Sicily. It is likely that
Hannibal was familiar, not only with the works of Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, and
Xenophon, but also with those of Greek philosophers, such as Heraklitus, Parmenides, Plato, and
above all, Aristotle, tutor to Alexander the Great, whom he greatly admired.
From age nine, Hannibal grew up in Spain, among the forces of his father, the
Carthaginian general Hamilcar Barca, who made sure that his son continued to have the best of
tutors, and who undoubtedly inculcated in him the values of Carthaginian society. To assume
15
that because he grew up surrounded by the Carthaginian colonial forces in Spain he only learned
soldiering (at which he clearly excelled) is unjustified. It seems likely that Hannibal, far from
being a violent man filled with hatred of the Roman enemies of Carthage, was a rational,
cultivated individual. The story of his childhood oath of eternal enmity against Rome is most
likely apocryphal, and in any case, it was an oath never to become a “friend” (meaning “a
subject”) of Rome, rather than a profession of hatred. It is quite possible that rather than
delighting in warfare, Hannibal engaged in it only out of necessity for the protection of his
country. There is no doubt that he was patriotic, and that he placed the welfare and glory of
Carthage above his own, even at times when his city-state failed to support him.
The document he prepared for the treaty of Carthage with King Philip V of Macedon, in
215 BCE (recorded by Polybius, 7:9), reveals not only that he was highly educated, respectful of
religious traditions, and well aware of diplomacy and protocol, but also that his plans and
intentions did not include the destruction of Rome. It is clear from this document that Hannibal
merely intended to curb the expansionistic military imperialism of Rome, and restrict the
Romans to their own geographical region in the middle of the Italian peninsula (Lancel 192-
194). This would have resulted in freedom for the cities previously subjugated by the Romans,
especially the Greek colonies at the south of the peninsula, as well as the liberation of the Gallic
tribes in the north. Naturally, it would also have allowed Carthage to retain its commercial preeminence
in the Mediterranean.
The Romans (especially Livy), portrayed Hannibal as greedy, cruel, faithless, and
treacherous, charges that were actually truer about the Romans themselves (consonant with the
workings of the ego defense mechanism of projection, attributing to someone else flaws one is
unwilling to recognize in oneself). This is not to argue that Hannibal was flawless, of course, but
16
he certainly was not crueler than his adversaries, who demonstrated terrible brutality and
vengefulness upon retaking cities that had previously allied themselves with the Carthaginians.
For those interested in Hannibal’s character, the excellent books on the subject by Gottlob
Egelhaaf (1922) and Edmund Groag (1967) are still highly recommended.
If we now imagine this brilliant general, an educated and cultured person from a society
that settled disagreements through compromise and negotiation, standing on the bloody field of
Cannae, littered with 75,000 dead and countless wounded and maimed, we can speculate that the
spectacle was not one in which he would have taken great pleasure. While acknowledging the
necessity of achieving victory in the face of a ruthless and intransigent enemy, his emotions were
probably closer to revulsion and consternation. In this mindset, for him to contemplate now the
destruction of a great city, resulting in hundreds of thousands of additional deaths, men, women,
and children, would not have resulted in eagerness to implement such macabre vision (quite the
opposite, by the way, seems to have been the case with Scipio Aemilianus, the architect of the
destruction of Carthage 70 years later, whose only regret after killing three fourths of a million
people, seems to have been the thought that some day Rome herself might suffer the same fate!).
An immediate march against Rome was then incompatible, not only with Hannibal’s goals and
intentions, but also with his character and personality.
But would it have made sense to attempt such a march at all? Rome was a large city,
defended by huge walls, which Hannibal’s troops would have been unable to breach, lacking
siege equipment. Besides, his numbers were insufficient for a successful siege. Parking his
relatively small army in front of the walls of Rome would have allowed them to be trapped
between the city’s defenses and reinforcements arriving from all corners of the peninsula, and
would have accomplished nothing but his own destruction. It must be remembered that, while
17
Hannibal was in a foreign land, cut off from his supply lines, and unable to receive
reinforcements, the manpower potential of the Roman federation was in excess of 700,000!
(Dodge 95).
There was still another reason why Hannibal could not have simply marched on Rome
right after the battle of Cannae. As John Shean argues quite convincingly, the logistical
limitations of Hannibal’s army would have made it impossible at that point (Shean 159-187).
Without a permanent base of supply, Hannibal did not have the resources to feed his animals and
men on a march of over 200 km without adequate preparation. Additionally, he had to take care
of an indeterminate, but certainly large, number of wounded.
There is also a further socio-cultural and political reason for why Hannibal would not
have contemplated such an action, even had it been feasible. In the tradition of the Mediterranean
world of his day (Greek, Macedonian, Carthaginian), a defeat such as the one inflicted on Rome
at Cannae would have led inevitably to a negotiated peace. Rome, having been repeatedly
defeated in the field and having had its greatest army annihilated, would have been expected to
agree to peace terms that included some compensation paid to the victor. But the Romans refused
to negotiate, and, showing a total disregard for human life, even that of their own citizens,
refused to ransom their captured soldiers, branding them as cowards simply due to the fact that
they were still alive! This was something Hannibal could not have foreseen. Once the Roman
attitude became apparent, Hannibal continued with his original plan of liberating the people
subjugated by Rome in order to gradually achieve the defection of Rome’s allies. He almost
succeeded. His strategy was sound, and the causes for its ultimate failure can be found, not in
some intrinsic weakness in his plan, but in two factors. The first one was the reluctance of the
people of Capua, Tarentum, and other liberated cities, to actually serve in Hannibal’s army and
18
risk making the ultimate sacrifice in defense of their newly gained freedom. The other consisted
of the myopic and misguided policies of his mother city, Carthage. The Carthaginian senate
repeatedly failed to fully support their greatest field commander, showing more concern for the
protection of their silver mines in Spain than for the resolution of the struggle in the Italian
peninsula, the war theatre in which final victory or defeat had to be decided.
Marching on Rome in the aftermath of Cannae was thus logistically impractical,
strategically suicidal, philosophically unacceptable, and psychologically incompatible with
Hannibal’s cultural upbringing and personality. After Cannae, Hannibal remained in Italy for 13
more years, during which time he was never actually defeated by the Romans, who were now
satisfied with following him at a distance and avoiding any further pitched battles with him. With
his limited numbers he could not be everywhere to protect his allies, and the cities he had
liberated were recaptured by the Romans, one by one. Had they, as well as Carthage, supported
him with all their resources, the outcome of the war would have been most likely different. That
they did not, and that he consequently failed, is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies in human
history.
6. Conclusion: The Lessons of History.
It is interesting to speculate on the consequences the victory of Rome over Carthage had
for the subsequent history of the rest of the world, and on how different that history might have
been if Carthage, and not Rome, had prevailed.
Rome was a militaristic society, where martial prowess and victory were valued above
everything else. Advancement in Roman society depended on military record. The Romans
regarded themselves as an elite destined to rule, and everyone else as inferior. In their thirst for
conquest, they were the original developers of the policy of pre-emptive warfare. The expansion
19
of empire that followed the wars against Carthage was characterized by the destruction of anyone
who they suspected could become a rival in the future. Their disregard for human life is
demonstrated by instances of genocide, such as the holocaust of Carthage, by the destruction and
massacre of Corinth, the sack of Jerusalem, and many more atrocities. Their society, although
not unique in this respect, was based on the institution of slavery. That they were good at
codifying laws and at building aqueducts and monuments has led many to ignore the darker side
of the Republic, and later, the Empire.
Ever since the defeat of Carthage, the history of the West has followed on the footsteps of
Rome. It has been characterized by warfare, bloodshed, and conquest, by the establishment of
empire, and later by efforts to replicate the Roman Empire after it finally collapsed. Hitler’s
Thousand-Year Reich was based on his dream to create an empire like Rome’s. Two books
recently released in Germany, Michael Ewert’s Amerikas punische Kriege: Niedergang, Terror
und Gehirnwaesche, and Peter Bender’s Weltmacht Amerika-Das neue Rom, present compelling
arguments that the same is true for the current policies of the Bush administration.
How different the world would have unfolded if Hannibal had been victorious, and the
mercantile culture of Carthage, based on barter, business, exchange, negotiation, and
compromise, had become the model for future generations! Perhaps peaceful coexistence rather
than armed confrontation and conquest would have become the norm rather than the exception,
and the tragic millennia of constant warfare could have been avoided. Peace and stability are the
necessary prerequisites for successful commerce. A Carthaginian victory would perhaps have
resulted in a more rational society, in which might does not make right. Carthage did not try to
impose its religion, beliefs, or even political system, on its allies, or within its sphere of
influence. Could perhaps a spirit of tolerance have developed, instead of centuries of intolerance,
20
repression, and religious persecution? It is impossible for us to know, of course. But there is little
doubt that the second war between Rome and Carthage, the so-called Hannibalic war, was a
major turning point in world history, and that the road not taken might have resulted in a
radically different future.
Returning to our original thesis, we have found that the history of Hannibal’s epic
struggle against Rome was distorted and misrepresented by the victors. In the case of the battle
of Cannae, the Roman account changed the actual size of the armies, attributed Roman defeat to
the wrong commander, reduced (with Livy) the casualty figures of the defeated, failed to give the
real reasons for the Roman disaster, and proposed a fictitious misjudgment on Hannibal’s part as
the reason for his ultimate failure. It is hoped that the arguments presented in the present paper
will help to reconstruct the events that transpired at Cannae in 216 BCE, and to put Hannibal in a
different historical perspective.


21
This paper offers a reconstruction of the events leading up to the battle of Zama, in 202 BCE.
The writings of pro-Roman historians, especially Polybius, an employee of the Cornelian family,
and Livy, a patriotic propagandist, tend to exaggerate the importance of Publius Cornelius
Scipio’s generalship at Zama and the preceding conflicts. Gaps and contradictions in the Roman
accounts, together with an understanding of psychological factors, such as the need to
compensate for the Roman humiliation at Cannae, plus a stress on internal consistency, allow for
a reconstruction of the decisive engagement at Zama. Masinissa, much more than Scipio,
emerges as the key protagonist of the Roman victory, in a battle that Hannibal’s tactical genius
could have won despite the inferior quality and numbers of his army. The implications and longterm
effects of the battle of Zama are discussed.
25
The battle of Zama, waged in North Africa in 202 BCE, between the armies of Hannibal
Barca—the Carthaginian leader famous for his crossing of the Alps—and the Roman general
Publius Cornelius Scipio, was the final military engagement of the Second Punic War, and a
decisive turning point in the history of the Mediterranean cultures and the rest of the world. The
traditional accounts of the battle, based practically in their entirety on pro-Roman sources, paint
a distorted picture of the conflict and its outcome, as we will show in this paper. We will explore
the reasons for the distortions in the historical record, and will attempt to reconstruct what
actually happened on that fateful day by examining discrepancies in the various accounts and
subjecting the record to psychological analysis and the method of logical consistency.
To understand what took place in 202 at Zama—not the name of the actual locality of the
engagement, but the label most easily recognized—and the reasons why the records of the event
were presented in the manner in which they have been preserved, it is necessary to go back to
216, the year of the greatest defeat in the history of Roman military power, the battle of Cannae.
Only by taking into account Hannibal’s victories at the Trebia (in 218), Trasimene (in 217), and
especially Cannae, can we gain a measure of the magnitude of the humiliation Rome experienced
at the hands of the great Carthaginian hero, who remained undefeated on Italian soil for 15 years.
We can then comprehend the psychological and political need to build up the image of a Roman
counter-hero, Scipio Africanus, and to exaggerate and distort the account of Zama by presenting
it as a Cannae in reverse. The descriptions of Cannae and Zama in Roman historiography offer a
curious reciprocal contrast, as will be seen below.
At Cannae, in 216 BCE, Hannibal was able to field 40,000 infantry plus 10,000 cavalry
to face a vastly numerically superior Roman force under Lucius Aemilius Paulus and Gaius
Terentius Varro, numbering 80,000 infantry and close to, or actually well over, 10,000 horse—
26
not merely 6,000, as usually claimed (see Mosig & Belhassen, 2006). Hannibal, through his
brilliant battlefield tactics, managed to destroy the Roman horse early in the engagement and
totally encircle the huge infantry force, achieving within a few hours the annihilation of the
largest army Rome had ever assembled. The following haiku may assist in visualizing the
devastation of the Romans at Cannae:
the Volturnus blows
proud Roman legions advance
no one named Gisgo
under the hot sun
Roman legions wearing red
black vultures circling
the plain of Cannae
seventy-thousand fallen
Hannibal victor
This terrible defeat was not only a severe blow to the military might of Rome; it was an
affront to Roman arrogance and pride. The description of the battle of Cannae in Roman
historiography was influenced primarily by the accounts of Polybius—who, although Greek, was
in the employ of the Cornelian family—and Titus Livius, or Livy, a patriotic Roman
propagandist. The reports of Polybius, Livy, and other pro-Roman historians distort the events at
Cannae in several ways (detailed in Mosig & Belhassen, 2006). One claim was that, although the
Romans had a two to one advantage in infantry, Hannibal had almost a two to one superiority in
cavalry, and that the numerically superior horse was the deciding factor in the disaster. Polybius
astutely gives the size of the Roman horse as “over 6000,” which is not technically false,
27
although clearly misleading, since the actual figure was probably close to twice that number. A
force of 10,000 to 12,000 horse and 80,000 foot soldiers allows for the total Roman deployment
to exceed 90,000. With 10,000 survivors plus 10,000 captured 90,000 is consistent with
Polybius’s reported casualty figure of 70,000. Livy, on the other hand, following Polybius’s
“6,000” number for the Roman horse, sees the total strength as 86,000, and gives a much lower
number for the Roman fallen, 50,000. By the creation of a fictional numerical superiority in the
Carthaginian horse and the sharp reduction of the Roman dead, the greatest shame of Roman
arms was substantially diminished (Mosig & Belhassen, 2006).
Additionally, Roman pride, which had rationalized the defeats at the Trebia and at Lake
Trasimene as the results of ambushes rather than “fair” engagements, needed some excuse to
explain how they had been crushed on an open plain at Cannae, where no ambush could be
concealed. To that end, Livy reports a spurious incident (not mentioned by Polybius) of
treacherous trickery, fitting his portrayal of Hannibal (21:4) as possessing “inhuman cruelty”
(inhumana crudelitas) and “no regard for truth” (nihil veri), as well as the standard Roman
stereotype of Carthaginian perfidy and “Punic faith.” A contingent of 500 apparently unarmed
Numidians allegedly pretended to defect and then attacked the Romans from behind with
weapons hidden in their clothes (22:48). It seems that vanity demanded that only through
treachery and overwhelming cavalry superiority could the “noble” Romans have been defeated!
But wounded Roman arrogance needed more than fabricated lower casualty figures,
inflated enemy numbers, and imagined trickery to alleviate the incurred disgrace. The Romans
needed a hero behind whom they could rally, a greater than life figure to restore lost confidence,
infuse new pride, and, above all, to counteract the image of the apparently invincible Hannibal,
Rome’s worst nightmare. They also desperately needed a great victory, comparable to Cannae, to
28
erase their dishonor. The heroization, deification, and hagiography of Publio Cornelius Scipio
the Younger, later known as Scipio Africanus, provided the Romans with a legend to accomplish
the former, while the exaggerated and distorted accounts of the battle of Zama supplied the
illusion that a reverse Cannae had been achieved. We will examine below both of these
developments.
A number of ancient sources provide information allowing us to follow the creation of
the legend and apotheosis of Scipio Africanus. Besides Polybius (who regarded him as a hero,
but had reservations concerning his character) and Livy, Haywood (1933) mentions support for
the idolizing of Scipio in reports by Appian, Lactantius, Ennius, Cicero, Oppius, Hyginus,
Valerius Maximus, Gellius, Nepos, and others. Members of the Cornelian family, as could be
expected, “were united in believing Africanus one of the greatest men of history. Ennius and
others had considered him more than a man” (Haywood 28-29).
The earliest expression of the heroization of Scipio in Roman historiography seems to be
the incident that supposedly took place during the cavalry engagement at the Ticinus river, in
218 BCE, the first clash between Punic and Roman forces after Hannibal’s epic crossing of the
Alps. There, Scipio’s father, the commanding consul, was seriously wounded, and was
supposedly saved by the bravery of his son, the future Africanus (Livy 21:46, 9-10), who was at
the time barely 18 years old. Nevertheless, according to Coelius Antipater, “the honor of saving
the consul should be credited to a Ligurian slave [rather than to the young Scipio].” Livy actually
says “servati consulis decus Coelius ad servum natione Ligurem delegat” (21:46, 10), while
expressing a preference for the version attributing the act to the young hero. The Ligurian slave
is also mentioned in Macrobius’s Saturnalia (1:11, 26), but the more popular account, giving
Scipio as the savior, is found in Appian, Hannibalic War, 7; Valerius Maximus 5:4, 2; Floros
29
2:6, 10; Silius Italicus 4, 417-479, Orosius 4:14; 6; Zonaras 8:23, 9, and others (Beck & Walter
51). Polybius, as Lancel (1998) points out, does not mention the incident in his description of the
battle of the Ticinus, but includes Scipio’s presumed heroism much later, attributing the
information to Scipio’s friend Laelius, hardly an unbiased source:
in his laudatory portrait of his hero leaving to conquer Punic Spain in 210 (X, 3) […]
claims that the young man had single handedly saved his father, who was hemmed in by
the enemy, while his companions hesitated in the face of danger […]. This narrative
smacks of the hagiography that very soon developed around the figure of Africanus,
doubtless with the complicity of the interested party. (84)
Beck & Walter (2004) comment on the discrepancy between Coelius Antipater’s description of
the incident and the version favored by the mainstream of Roman historiography:
Die Absicht, den jungen P. Cornelius Scipio mit den Heldentat vom Ticinus zu
schmücken, griff tiefer als eine blosse Stilisierung der virtus des Africanus. Polybius und
hernach Livius dürfte es vielmehr darum gegangen sein, Scipio als einem Mann
hinzustellen, der vom ersten Gefecht des Krieges bis zum Triumph von Zama
unermüdlich gegen Hannibal gekämpft hatte. Coelius war von dieser Intention frei. (52) 1
If Scipio actually was at the Ticinus, he must have been at the battle of the Trebia as well,
(also in 218 BCE), but there is no mention in any of the sources indicating either his presence or
his participation in the first major engagement of the war, where Hannibal crushed the combined
armies of Scipio’s wounded father and of Sempronius Longus, the other consul of that fateful
year. Clearly, if the young Scipio was there, he did nothing to distinguish himself.
1 “The intention to decorate the young P. Cornelius Scipio with the heroic deed from the Ticinus goes
deeper than a mere attempt to express his virtus. Polybius and afterwards Livy were much more interested
in portraying him as a man who, from the very beginning of the war till the victory at Zama, struggled
tirelessly against Hannibal. Coelius was unencumbered by that intention.”
30
Scipio, supposedly, was also at Cannae, but, as Ridley (1975) points out, he is not
mentioned by either Livy or Polybius in their descriptions of the battle. Nevertheless, Livy
(22:50-52) lists his name as one of four military tribunes among the survivors who escaped from
the debacle. Livy, but not Polybius, includes also an anecdote consistent with the hagiography of
the hero, in which allegedly Scipio confronts M. Caecilius Metellus, who, together with others, is
planning to leave Italy altogether, believing the situation to be hopeless, and forces him and his
followers, at swordpoint, to take an oath to Jupiter invoking their personal destruction should
they abandon Rome (22:54). The incident is suspect as a further fiction to enhance the growing
legend. Scullard (1930) argues that “this story is probably a late invention, otherwise Polybius
would hardly have omitted it” (38).
It is interesting to notice that the Romans disdained those who allowed themselves to be
captured at Cannae, whom they branded as cowards and refused to ransom when Hannibal
offered them the alternative; as a consequence they were sold into slavery. Disdain was only
slightly less for those who had survived the battle by escaping, and they were also disgraced and
labeled cowards, since to save themselves they had fled the battlefield rather than dying with
honor (Livy 22:49-60). They were punished by being forced to serve indefinitely in Sicily
without pay. On the other hand, escape from the Roman camp to avoid capture, rather than from
the battlefield, was not similarly stigmatized. Naturally, if Scipio was at Cannae, as Livy implies,
had he survived by escaping from the battlefield, by Roman standards he should also have been
regarded as a coward and his reputation tainted accordingly—but no mention is made of it. If he
was in the camp and did not see action other than escaping in the middle of the night, there was
also no glory in that alternative. Similarly, Ridley argues that:
31
if, as seems likely, Scipio actually fought at Cannae, then here indeed is a hitherto
neglected, albeit negative, element in the Scipionic legend: the studious avoidance of any
direct statement by any of our sources to this effect. The dramatic contrast of Scipio’s
presence at Rome’s greatest humiliation at Hannibal’s hands with his ultimate turning of
the tables at Zama, would seem to have been appealing […] Scipio’s part in [the battle of
Cannae], apparently undistinguished, has been expunged from history. (165)
Scipio’s involvement in the three Roman defeats at which he was probably present—Ticinus,
Trebia, Cannae—was undistinguished at best. However, there is little doubt that he carefully
studied Hannibal’s tactics, and that he was a good student, as demonstrated by his Iberian
campaign, where his victories against less competent Carthaginian commanders were made
possible by tactical maneuvers derived from Hannibal.
The brazen attack on Cartagena in 209 BCE, while the Punic armies were away, was
successful largely due to luck and his discovery of the shallowness of the ebbing waters
protecting one side of the city (Livy 26:41-51). As Polybius (10:2) reports, Scipio tried to exploit
the situation to convince his soldiers that he was under divine protection and had a special
connection to the gods, especially Neptune. There is no doubt that he was a shrewd and clever
manipulator of people, and in this and other instances did not hesitate to use the opportunity to
build up his own image. He later allowed himself to be seen as a mystic and a favorite of Jupiter,
fomenting the growth of his own legend.
Although as a politician he may have approached greatness—at least in a Machiavellian
sense—as a military commander he was competent but not brilliant, certainly not a genius of the
caliber of Alexander or Hannibal, Liddell Hart (1927) to the contrary. His main victories in
Spain—at Baecula in 208 and Ilipa in 206 BCE—reflect his adoption of Hannibalic tactics,
32
especially the withdrawn center, which is not to say that his maneuvers showed a complete lack
of originality.
The battle of Baecula, despite being hailed as a great victory by pro-Roman historians,
was actually a disaster, if the intention was to block Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s brother, from
continuing north to cross the Alps and join the latter’s forces in Italy. Scipio failed, and although
he “won” the battle, Hasdrubal was able to escape with most of his army intact and proceed north
for his rendezvous with destiny (Polybius 10:38; Livy 27:18). This failure could have cost the
Romans the war, for had Hasdrubal succeeded in reinforcing Hannibal in Italy, the combined
Punic forces under the command of the undefeated Carthaginian maverick would in all
likelihood have proven unstoppable. Hasdrubal’s defeat at the Metaurus before he could reach
his brother saved the city on the Tiber from certain disaster, an event which owed nothing to
Scipio and a lot to luck: the interception of Hasdrubal’s messengers attempting to reach Hannibal
to arrange for the meeting of the two Carthaginian armies (Livy 27:43).
Nevertheless, since the following battle, at Ilipa (206 BCE), effectively ended
Carthaginian control of Spain, Scipio returned to Rome a hero, was elected consul in 205, and
became proconsul the following year, retaining his command in Sicily. Hannibal, although
remaining undefeated after 14 years of war, by 204 was limited in his operations to Bruttium, the
tip of the Italian peninsula. The Fabians2 in the Roman senate urged action, including the
venerable Fabius Maximus, who had exhibited the wisdom of not engaging Hannibal after the
Roman debacle at Lake Trasimene in 217 BCE, waging instead a war of attrition, a tactic which,
when discontinued after the conclusion of his term in office, led to Cannae. With Hannibal’s
weary and much diminished army hemmed in at the tip of the peninsula, Scipio was urged to
2 The Fabians were one of the main families of the Roman nobility, the others being the Cornelians and
the Claudians.
33
lead the Roman legions on a final battle to defeat the Carthaginian general once and for all (Livy
28:38-45). Scipio refused, insisting instead on taking the war to Carthage, and the invasion of
Africa started in 204 BCE.
Although he would have to face Carthaginian armies on their own land, where they could
be resupplied without difficulties and would outnumber him, Scipio knew that they did not have
another Hannibal among them, and judging from his experience with the less than gifted
Carthaginian commanders in Spain he expected to have a better chance of success than facing
the remnants of the army of the formidable Hannibal in Italy. Moreover, if he were to achieve
success in Africa, he might accomplish the recall of Hannibal from Italy to defend his home city,
in which case the great Barcid would arrive without a substantial part of his current forces,
especially his much-feared cavalry, due to Roman control of the Mediterranean impeding easy
transport of supplies and reinforcements by the enemy. Dodge (1891) perceptively comments:
Scipio did no more for Italy than Marcellus [conqueror of Syracuse], less
than Nero [victor at the Metaurus], but he has descended into history as a greater
character than either. Less able in many respects, his work was supplemented by
opportunities not awarded them, and what he did bore fruit which all men could see.
Scipio never hid his light under a bushel. Had Scipio faced Hannibal when Marcellus or
Nero was called on to do so, he would probably have failed. Fortune saved him for Zama,
when Hannibal had no longer an army and he himself had inherited the best of its size
Rome had put into the field. (572)
Scipio had another reason to avoid fighting Hannibal in Italy, in addition to fear of
suffering a crushing defeat at the hands of the master. He had been courting Masinissa, a
Numidian prince and master of the horse, son of Gaia, king of the Maessylii, whose help and
34
cavalry would be available to him in Africa, but not in Italy. Earlier, Syphax, a Numidian king of
the Masaessylii, had been persuaded by Scipio’s father and uncle to join the Roman cause, while
the brothers were commanding the Roman forces in Spain. His defection hurt Carthaginian
efforts, dependent as they were on Numidian cavalry. Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s brother, had
combined his forces with those of King Gaia, under the command of Masinissa, who had
remained loyal to Carthage, and inflicted two crushing defeats on Syphax. Masinissa was also
cavalry commander for the Carthaginian army that in 211 BCE defeated the army of Scipio’s
father, Publius Cornelius Scipio the Elder, who was killed in the engagement (Polybius 9:22;
Livy 25:32-34; de Beer 236-243).
After Baecula, in 208, Masinissa, still loyal to the Carthaginians, retreated south toward
Gades. Scipio had crossed to Africa to visit the court of King Syphax and negotiate his continued
support of Rome, and apparently charmed the king with his eloquence, despite the presence of
the enemy Carthaginian general, Hasdrubal Gisgo. Back in Gades, he wooed Masinissa, “who
also fell under the spell of Scipio’s charm” (de Beer 270) and signed a treaty with him (Livy
28:35). This act of Masinissa, amounting to a betrayal of his loyalty to Hannibal and Carthage,
would have a momentous effect on the outcome of the war. Clearly, Scipio’s skill as politician
surpassed his talent as battlefield commander.
While Masinissa was still in Spain, his father died, and the succession to the throne of the
Maessylii resulted in conflict and civil war, with Mazaetullus usurping power and marrying the
Carthaginian widow of the dead king in order to ally himself with Carthage. Masinissa returned
to Africa and fought successfully to regain his kingdom, but this put him at odds with Syphax,
the king of the Masaessylii, who had supported his rivals for the throne. This time Masinissa was
defeated in battle, but managed to escape and hide in the mountains to avoid capture and death.
35
He was able to raise a new army from his supporters, but was defeated once more by his enemy.
Masinissa was expecting Scipio’s arrival in Africa, planning to use the opportunity to defeat his
adversary, but Scipio’s delays with the invasion cost him dearly (Livy 29; de Beer 278-279).
To seal Syphax’s support of Carthage, Hasdrubal Gisgo gave the aging king, in marriage,
his beautiful daughter Sophonisba, who had also been courted by Masinissa, upon which Syphax
sent Scipio a message warning him not to invade Africa, for the king would now be on the
Carthaginian side.
Scipio proceeded with the invasion anyway, and landed at Cape Farina, near Utica, in the
spring of 204 (Livy 29:27, 5-12; Seibert 432), with an army of at least 30,000 men. He was
joined there by the Numidian horse under Masinissa, who defeated a small cavalry force under
Hanno that had been sent from Carthage to meet the invaders, Hanno himself being killed in the
engagement.
Scipio laid siege to Utica (Ityke), but was unable to take it. Meanwhile,
Hasdrubal Gisgo, together with his ally Syphax, assembled an army and marched against
Scipio’s position. It is important to note that Carthage, unlike Rome, had no confederation of
allies, and that there was no standing army at the Punic city. As de Beer (1969) suggests, the
hastily assembled force of Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax, although large in number, was probably
“only a rabble of miserable quality” that would be “quite unable to stand up to veteran Roman
legionnaires” (280), and even more importantly, had no Hannibal to lead them.
Scipio discontinued the siege of Utica and prepared a defensive camp on the peninsula, in
what later became known as the Castra Cornelia, going into winter quarters. Probably still
hopeful of being able once again to charm Syphax with his silver tongue, he sent many envoys to
the Numidian camp, as well as to the Carthaginian, to offer a peaceful resolution of the conflict.
36
Believing the overture to be in good faith, Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax started negotiations with
Scipio aimed at ending the conflict. It was obvious that the Carthaginians wanted the long war to
end, and for peace to be achieved. The Roman commander, who had no desire for a peaceful
resolution of the conflict, since it would have deprived him of glory and the spoils of victory,
pretended to go along, and skillfully gave the impression that he was in agreement with the
proposals of his reluctant opponents, and that peace would be reached as soon as he received
confirmation and approval from Rome. The peace proposal he was offered was not frivolous; it
was an agreement stipulating that the Carthaginian forces would withdraw from Italy and the
Romans from Africa, and that for the territories between Africa and Italy the status quo would
prevail (Livy 30:3-4; Huss 295).
Having deceived the Carthaginians with the false negotiations—Scipio had not asked for
any verification from Rome, it was all a sham—he engaged next in one of the most treacherous
attacks recorded in human history. Since his delegates had repeatedly visited the Punic camps
and had secretly mapped them in close detail, once he had the Carthaginians convinced that an
agreement and peace were imminent, he launched a sneak attack in the middle of the night.
Masinissa and Laelius were in charge of setting fire to the Numidian quarters, while Scipio
himself supervised the torching of the Carthaginian camp (Polybius 14:2; Livy 30:5-6; Huss
295). The temporary structures housing Hasdrubal’s and Syphax’s men went up in flames, and
the soldiers, thinking the fire accidental, emerged without their weapons to put out the blaze, and
were cut down without mercy (de Beer 282). So much for good faith and “Roman fides.”
Through fire and sword, the unarmed and defenseless Numidians and Carthaginians were
slaughtered by the thousands. No honor could be attached to such treachery, but Roman
historiography tries to justify the actions of their hero by stating that he feared some Punic trick,
37
and that he had indicated that the negotiations were off prior to the sneak attack, both highly
unlikely. Hasdrubal Gisgo and Syphax were able to flee from the macabre scene, the former
returning to Carthage and the latter going to Abba (Livy 30:7; Huss 295).
The Carthaginian senators were horrified and demanded action. Hasdrubal was able to
persuade Syphax to continue the struggle, and the forces of the Numidian king and the
Carthaginians, mostly raw recruits rather than soldiers (Huss 296), congregated at the Great
Plains to give battle. Livy characterizes the army of Hasdrubal Gisgo at the Great Plains as an
“irregular army suddenly raised from a half-armed mob of rustics” (30:28, 3). Not surprisingly,
they were defeated by Scipio, with the help of the Numidian cavalry under Masinissa. Hasdrubal
fled to Carthage and Syphax to his capital, Cirta, with Masinissa and Laelius in hot pursuit.
Syphax was defeated and captured. In the same day, Masinissa married Sophonisba, the
wife of the captured monarch. The well-known anecdote that follows throws some light on the
characters of both Masinissa and Scipio. The latter regarded all prisoners as Roman property, and
was outraged at Masinissa, demanding that he surrender Sophonisba to be sent in chains to
Rome. Masinissa failed to stand up to Scipio, although he had the leverage of being commander
of the Numidian cavalry, without which Scipio’s previous victories in Africa might not have
happened, and whose help would be essential to face Hannibal when, as was inevitable, he was
recalled from Italy. Despite professing ardent love for the beautiful Carthaginian princess, he
could think of nothing better to offer her than a cup of poison. Scipio had seduced him with a
promise of recognition as Numidian king, and clearly greed trumped love. She accepted her
wedding “gift,” and her suicide at least spared her the indignity and humiliation of being paraded
through the streets of Rome, as Syphax himself later was, prior to his incarceration and death at
Tibur in 201 (Livy 30:13-15).
38
Scipio offered Carthage peace conditions as follows: unconditional return of war
prisoners and deserters, withdrawal of all forces from Italy, concession of Spain to Rome,
withdrawal from all Mediterranean islands between Italy and Africa, surrender of all but 20
Carthaginian warships, payment of 5,000 silver talents, delivery of citizens to serve as hostages,
and the supply of a huge amount of grain to feed the Roman army (Livy 30:16). Carthage
accepted and sent delegates, both to Rome, to sign the agreement, and to Scipio, to achieve the
cessation of hostilities.
The request for a truce was granted by the Roman commander, but in Rome the
Carthaginian delegates were vilified and mistreated. Livy writes:
Marcus Valerius Laevinus, who had twice been consul, contended that spies, not envoys,
had come to them, and that they should be ordered to depart from Italy and guards sent
with them all the way to their ships, and that a written order should be sent to Scipio not
to relax effort in the war […] a larger number [of senators] voted for Laevinus’s motion.
The envoys were sent away without securing peace and almost without an answer.
(30:23, 2-8)
Hannibal, who was still undefeated in Bruttium, as well as his youngest brother, Mago,
who had suffered a reverse of fortune in his invasion of northern Italy, after an aborted attempt to
move south hoping to eventually join his brother, received orders to return to Carthage to defend
the motherland, and both complied, although Mago died from his wounds on the way back (Livy
30:18-20). Hannibal, who had fought for 15 years in Italy, must have realized that the war no
longer made sense and could not be won, and that all the Carthaginians could hope for at this
point was a reasonable peace. He sailed to return to Africa, probably in the fall of 203.
39
During the armistice, 200 transports carrying supplies for the Roman forces in Africa,
escorted by 30 warships, were severely damaged by a storm, within sight of Carthage, where the
population was suffering starvation. While the warships managed to survive the tempest and
reach the Promontory of Apollo, a number of the scattered and damaged Roman ships were
towed to Carthage by Carthaginian vessels (Livy 30:10). Scipio reacted with outrage, claiming
that the hope for peace and the sanctity of the truce had been violated. His delegates, sent to
Carthage to protest, were threatened by a mob, but managed to escape unharmed. Scipio
prepared to continue the armed conflict. The Roman historians, of course, neglect to mention that
the Carthaginian envoys to Rome had also been mistreated, and that the Roman senate had failed
to ratify the peace treaty (Livy 30:25, 10), so that the responsibility for the renewal of hostilities
did not lie only with the Carthaginians—Rome had also acted in bad faith.
Meanwhile, Hannibal disembarked at Leptis (Livy 30:25, 10) late in 203 and moved to
Hadrumetum (Livy 30:29). “From there, after he had spent a few days that his soldiers might
recuperate from sea-sickness, he was called away by alarming news brought by men who
reported that all the country round Carthage was occupied by armed forces, and he hastened to
Zama by forced marches” (Livy 30:29, 1-3). Polybius, whom Livy probably follows in the
above, writes:
The Carthaginians, when they saw their towns being sacked, sent to Hannibal begging
him not to delay, but to approach the enemy and decide matters in a battle. After listening
to the messengers he bade them in reply pay attention to other matters and be at their ease
about this; for he himself would judge when it was time. After a few days he shifted his
camp from the neighborhood of [Hadrumetum] and advancing encamped near Zama.
This is a town lying five day’s journey to the west of Carthage. (15:5, 10)
40
The exact location of Zama remains the subject of research and speculation. It probably
was not Zama Regia, about 90 miles west of Hadrumetum, as some have suggested (Moore in
Livy, 1949, 28-30; Lancel 173), or Naragarra, favored by others. Even the classical record lacks
unanimity. While Nepos gives Zama as the name of the place, Polybius refers to it as Margaron,
Livy as Naragarra, and Appian as Killa (Seibert 446). A recent study by Duncan Ross (2005)
may have solved the riddle. He describes a Numidian monument, Kbor Klib, which was in all
likelihood erected to commemorate the victory of Scipio and Masinissa, and which overlooks a
plain where the battle was probably held. It lies west of Sousse (Hadrumetum), in north-central
Tunisia, between the modern cities of Siliana and Le Kef (Ross 1).
The military potential of Hannibal and Scipio at “Zama” was similar—each commanded
about 40,000, but Scipio, with the arrival of Masinissa at the head of a contingent of 4,000
Numidian riders, was vastly superior in cavalry. When we add to this the fact that over two thirds
of Hannibal’s forces were unseasoned, the illusion of apparent equality promptly dissolves. And
yet, the Carthaginian side counted with the genius of Hannibal, which practically tipped the
scales.
Before Zama, Hannibal and Scipio had never met directly, either in battle or in a face to
face encounter. Roman historiography has constructed an anecdote suggesting that Hannibal
asked Scipio for a personal conference prior to the battle, and Polybius as well as Livy pretend to
transcribe in detail what was said, although neither was there. The exchanges reported may be
largely or totally imaginary—at least some parts are patently absurd, as we will see below.
According to the Polybian account, as the generals meet, Hannibal speaks first, offering
terms of peace, and counseling Scipio not to give in to arrogance and thus reject an offer made in
good faith. This is plausible, although the words put in Hannibal’s mouth at the start of his
41
alleged statement are unlikely: “In the first place we went to war with each other for the
possession of Sicily and next for that of Spain” (Polybius 25:6, 6). He might have said instead
something like this: “We went to war initially when Rome intruded in the Carthaginian province
of Sicily, and at the end of that conflict, when we were putting down a terrible rebellion of
mercenaries, you, Romans, used the opportunity to steal Corsica and Sardinia from us; next we
went to Spain, to be able to secure the means with which to pay the unreasonable tribute you
demanded from us, but you imposed the Ebro as a limit beyond which we were not allowed to
pass, and yet you made a treaty with Saguntum, a city south of the Ebro and thus within our
agreed territory, a city which, with your encouragement, persecuted and massacred citizens loyal
to Carthage, which forced me to lay siege to it and take it by force. Upon this, it was you,
Romans, who used this as an excuse to declare war….” The matter of the guilt for the start of the
Second Punic War has been debated for many years (e.g., Rudat, 2006; Hockert, 2005; Reutter,
2003; Barcelo, 2000; Hoyos, 1998; Kolbe, 1934), but the preceding would, in all likelihood, have
been the position embraced by the Carthaginians, and is supported by most of the scholars listed
above.
Scipio’s reply is not only arrogant, but absurd, and certainly would not have been left
unanswered by Hannibal. According to Polybius, Scipio states that:
neither for the war about Sicily, nor for that about Spain, were the Romans
responsible, but the Carthaginians were evidently the authors of both, as Hannibal
himself was well aware {our italics—Hannibal would have had a hard time not laughing
aloud at this bit of Roman propaganda, which obviously Scipio could not have believed
himself}. The gods, too, had testified to this by bestowing victory not on the unjust
aggressors but on those who had taken arms to defend themselves. (15:8) {Has Scipio
42
forgotten that in that case the gods must have favored Hannibal, who until then had
emerged victorious every time, not to mention that the gods must have been asleep in
211, when both his father and his uncle were killed in battle in Spain? (Livy 25: 34-35)}.
Next Polybius reports that Scipio supposedly went on to claim that the Carthaginians had
broken the previous peace agreement: “We jointly sent envoys to Rome to submit [the terms] to
the senate […] The senate agreed and the people also gave their consent. The Carthaginians,
after their request [for peace] had been granted, most treacherously violated the peace” (15:8, 8-
10), which, if we follow the later account by Livy, given above, was not the case. Scipio,
allegedly, ends by demanding unconditional surrender: “Either put yourselves and your country
at our mercy or fight and conquer us” (15:8, 14).
At Zama, Hannibal supposedly was able to field 36,000 infantry, 4,000 horse, and 80
elephants, to face Scipio’s army of 29,000 infantry and over 6,000 horse. A standard summary of
the description of the battle, as presented by Roman historiography, can be found in the Oxford
Classical Dictionary (2003):
The elephants, opening the battle, were either ushered down corridors Scipio had left in
his formation or driven out to the flanks, where they collided with Hannibal’s cavalry,
which was then routed by the Roman cavalry. When the infantry lines closed, the Roman
first line may have defeated both Hannibal’s first and second lines, though the remnants
may have reformed on the wings of his third line, composed of his veterans from Italy.
Scipio, too, reformed his lines at this point, and a titanic struggle developed until the
Roman cavalry, returning from the pursuit, charged into Hannibal’s rear, whereupon his
army disintegrated. (Polybius 15: 9-16; Livy 30: 29-35; Scullard, 1970; Lazenby, 1978)
43
First of all, let us consider the matter of the elephants. Roman historiography, as part of
the development of the Scipio legend and the dissemination of pro-Roman propaganda, has
recorded that Hannibal had available an inordinately large number of war elephants at Zama, no
less than 80 (Livy 30:33). Considering that he had only 37 to cross the Alps and invade Italy, and
that in the string of his great and devastating victories, from 218 to 216, the elephants
participated in only one battle, at the Trebia, the number given for Zama is quite remarkable.
How many elephants did the city of Carthage, which did not support a regular standing
army, maintain? If the Carthaginians had a large supply of trained war elephants at hand, it
would have made sense for them to send along a sizeable contingent of pachyderms, the tanks of
antiquity, with Hasdrubal Gisgo, when he marched to meet Scipio’s invading force surrounding
Utica. But we do not read Roman reports of any elephants, not a single solitary one,
accompanying the forces of Hasdrubal.
Surely, after Scipio’s treacherous sneak attack in the middle of the night, burning the
tents of unsuspecting soldiers lulled into complacency with a promise of peace, the Carthaginian
senate would have ordered all its available war elephants to march to face the ruthless enemy at
the Great Plains. Once again, the elephants are conspicuous by their absence. Naturally, all we
have are the Roman accounts—the work of the Carthaginian historians are no longer extant,
having been conveniently lost or intentionally destroyed in the burning of Carthage and its
libraries in 146 BCE.
All of a sudden, Hannibal, who had only been able to assemble a makeshift army for the
decisive confrontation at Zama, appears with no less than 80 elephants, all with mahouts and
trained for battle. This brigade of pachyderms is in all likelihood a fabrication of the pro-Roman
44
historians, a bit of propaganda to make Scipio’s victory appear more formidable and impressive.
Perhaps instead of 80, there were 18, or maybe only eight, or, most probably, none.
The charge of the presumed elephants supposedly opens the battle, but we are told that
they were frightened by loud noises, shield clashing, trumpets, and what not. This also does not
make much sense. Ancient battles typically started with loud yelling, shield banging, and other
forms of intimidation, and consequently a major part of the training of animals to be used in
attacking enemy positions would have consisted of accustoming them to such sounds.
Then, it is claimed that the elephants either run blindly into corridors left open in the
Roman formation for the purpose of directing the animals to harmlessly pass through—Scipio’s
alleged “solution” to the problem posed by an elephant charge—or they panicked and turned
against Hannibal’s own army, wrecking havoc with his cavalry on the flanks. This also does not
hold up against logical scrutiny. Since the animals carried mahouts on their backs, in addition to
one or more armed warriors, and the animals were trained to respond to the commands or
pressure of their riders, they would surely have been steered to one side or the other to trample
men at the edges of any such corridors. Furthermore, as Haywood (1933) and Scullard (1974)
point out, it is not credible that rampaging elephants would do a lot of damage turning against
their own side, because the mahouts carried a hammer and chisel to kill any elephant running out
of control, as was the case at the battle of the Metaurus (Livy 27:49).3
Attempts have been made to compare the battle of Zama with Cannae, and to call Zama a
“Cannae in reverse,” but the comparisons simply do not hold up (Barcelo 2000, 207). The scale
of Cannae was vastly larger. With 96,000 Romans and 50,000 Cartaginians, almost 150,000 men
3 It cannot be argued that these were poorly trained elephants, for if Carthage did not send any elephants
with Hasdrubal Gisgo to Utica or to the Great Plains, it would have had available all its well-trained
pachyderms, while had the city exhausted its supply there would not have been time, between the Great
Plains battle and Zama, to capture and train more.
45
committed themselves to a death struggle on that fateful day, 14 years earlier. By contrast, if we
accept the Roman accounts, likely to have exaggerated the number of Carthaginian combatants at
Zama in order to make victory more impressive, we would have 35,000 on the Roman side and
40,000 (probably less) on the Carthaginian, or a total of 75,000—about half the number at
Cannae.
At Cannae discipline and precision were extreme, and Hannibal’s forces moved in
clockwork fashion, leaving nothing to chance (Mosig & Belhassen, 2006). After the
Carthaginian heavy horse under Hasdrubal (no relation to Hannibal’s brother by the same name)
defeated the Roman equites on the right wing of the Roman formation, they did not pursue the
survivors, but wheeled to the right like a well-oiled machine, and swiftly rode behind the
battlefield to fall upon the flank and rear of the large contingent of allied Italian cavalry under
Varro, which was being kept in place by the hit and run tactics of the agile Numidian horse.
When the allied cavalry broke, it was only the fast Numidian riders who undertook the pursuit,
while Hasdrubal’s heavy horse, with perfect discipline, wheeled to the right once more and fell
on the rear of the Roman army, blocking any retreat and dooming the legions under Servilius and
Minucius.
Compare the above display with the cavalry engagement at Zama. There can hardly be
any doubt that there Hannibal instructed his much smaller Numidian and Carthaginian horse to
feign a retreat, and, pretending to escape, draw away from the battlefield the Numidian horse
under Masinissa as well as the Roman horse under Laelius on the opposite wing. This they
accomplished with perfection, removing the superior cavalry forces from the battlefield (Huss
301).
46
With respect to the infantry engagement, only Hannibal’s third line, which he held as a
reserve far behind the others, was composed of seasoned veterans and elite forces from his
Italian campaign. Naturally, most of them were not among the men who had crossed the Alps
with him in 218 BCE, but were experienced soldiers who had defeated the legions of Rome
repeatedly during the war, probably including many from Bruttium, and were determined to
shake the Roman yoke. His first two lines, on the other hand, were of questionable quality.
Hannibal probably expected them to cave in under the onslaught of the veteran Roman
legionnaires, although not without first taking their toll from the Romans, both in terms of
casualties and fatigue. He wanted to insure that not only the Roman first line—the hastati—but
also the second and third lines—the principes and the triari—would come into the fray and
gradually wear themselves out. Once Hannibal’s first line broke, the retreating soldiers were not
permitted to reintegrate themselves at random points in the next line, but were forced to move to
the sides, extending the Carthaginian front. The same thing happened after the second line broke,
and then the Romans were left facing the fresh and rested elite veterans of Hannibal’s army, plus
a vastly wider enemy line, threatening to engulf them from the flanks.4
At that point in the battle of Zama, Scipio must have realized that his situation was
becoming desperate, for he was in danger of being enveloped from the sides, with an immovable
barrier of rested soldiers moving in from the front, and he ordered the Roman advance stopped.
In haste he displaced the principes and the triari to the sides, extending his front to match the
4 Hannibal had used a reserve force before. At Cannae, he had kept back his elite heavily armed Libyan
troops as a reserve on both wings, and when the Roman juggernaut of 80,000 pursued his intentionally
retreating forces in the center, which had initially fanned out forward in a convex semicircle (as seen from
the Roman side), gradually becoming a straight line and then a concave trap, into which the Romans
marched believing that victory was theirs, he put them into action. The African forces wheeled in from
both sides, and acted as a giant vise, gradually compressing and then stopping the Roman advance,
turning the battlefield into a slaughterhouse that ended with the annihilation of the enemy.
47
width of the Carthaginian line and avoid encirclement. But Hannibal must have also used the
momentary lull in the fighting to reorganize his forces, and it seems likely that he may have
displaced his veterans to the sides, to face the triari and the principes, while the survivors of his
first two lines got ready to deal with the exhausted hastati. There was nothing more that Scipio
could have done at this point, and the battle resumed with increasing ferocity. In view of the
rested condition of Hannibal’s elite veterans, it is very likely that they were in the process of
routing the principes and triari while the center held, and defeat looked Scipio in the face. But,
alas, it was not to be, because the horse under Masinissa and Laelius, tricked away from the
battlefield for what must have been hours, managed to return in the nick of time, saving Scipio
from an almost certain disaster. And even at this point, the Carthaginians were not completely
encircled, as the Romans had been at Cannae. That they lost the battle was certainly not due to
the generalship of Publius Cornelius Scipio, soon to be known as Africanus, nor to an error on
the part of Hannibal, but to sheer luck and the presence of Masinissa, without whom the Romans
would most certainly have been doomed. According to Polybius, the Carthaginian casualties
numbered 20,000, an outcome hardly comparable with the 70,000 fallen at Cannae.
Hannibal, together with some of his officers, escaped, and the great Barcid went to
Hadrumetum, and from there to Carthage, to help his people once again, this time to accept the
harsh terms of surrender and later to reorganize the government. Scipio, undoubtedly aware that
he would have been defeated, had he not been saved at the last moment by Masinissa, later
acknowledged that Hannibal had done at Zama everything anyone could have done (Livy 30:35,
5-8). The illusion that at Zama the student had matched and outdone the teacher, part of the
Scipio legend propagated by Roman historiography, does not fit what actually happened in the
last battle of the Second Punic War.
48
Now that we have painted what we believe is a very probable picture of what transpired
at the battle of Zama, we must ask, who was, really, the victor? Although Scipio was credited
with the defeat of the Carthaginian army, was given a triumphal reception in Rome, and was
awarded the name Africanus, clearly it was Masinissa, and not Scipio, who was ultimately
responsible, he and Lady Luck, for had his cavalry been 30 minutes later in returning to the
battlefield, Zama would, most probably, have been added to the string of Hannibal’s victories,
who surely ranks in history as one of the greatest commanders of all time. A true patriot, he
sacrificed everything for his homeland, and is regarded by some as the last hero of the free world
of antiquity.
It is interesting to note that the Kbor Klib monument, as described by Ross (2005),
features two niches, accessible by steps, one on each side of the structure, but facing the same
direction, toward the plain below. Could each have contained a likeness or effigy of one of the
leaders of the victorious side at Zama, Masinissa and Scipio, with the monument overlooking the
ancient battlefield? One is tempted to speculate that the Numidians might have placed their hero,
Masinissa, on the right, as the real victor of Zama, with a likeness of Scipio to the left, in order
not to offend the Romans.
In the long run, Masinissa reaped mixed benefits from his betrayal of Hannibal and
Carthage, at least for his descendants. He did live a long life (from 238 to 148 BCE), and
following Zama was recognized as king by Scipio and confirmed by the Roman senate. He
continued to support Rome in its subsequent wars, and in return enjoyed support in his
continuous aggression against Carthage. His bellicosity eventually provoked a response from the
Punic city, which Rome used as excuse to start the Third Punic War, ending with the holocaust
49
and destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE, after three years of siege. Through his dealings with
Rome, Masinissa saw his own territory significantly enlarged (Hornblower & Spawforth 934).
Nevertheless, the vision of the Numidian king was nearsighted, for he also sowed the
seeds that would lead to the eventual destruction of his nation and the enslavement of his
descendants. The consequences of his betrayal of Hannibal and his opportunism in allying
himself with Rome for personal glory, bore their bitter fruit 44 years after his death. As recorded
by Sallust, his eldest son and successor, the Numidian king Micipsa, adopted Masinissa’s
grandson, Jugurtha, although he was not within the line of succession. At Micipsa’s death, the
kingdom was to be divided between Jugurtha and the king’s two legitimate sons, Hiempsal and
Adherbal. In the ensuing power struggle, Jugurtha killed Hiempsal and captured Cirta, the capital
of his other brother, Adherbal, whom he also ordered killed. The incidental deaths of Roman
citizens provided Rome with an excuse to launch a war of aggression, and although it lasted
years, it ended when Sulla convinced king Bocchus I to surrender Jugurtha to Marius, who had
him executed, following the Roman general’s triumphal entry in Rome (Sallust 6-26, 101-114;
Jallet-Huant, 2006; Hornblower & Spawforth, 2003; Storm, 2001). In less than 50 years,
Numidia, which had enjoyed relative autonomy and freedom in the days of its alliance with
Carthage, had fallen under the expansionistic power of Rome.
Not only did Masinissa’s actions influence the fate of North Africa, but the repercussions
of his causing Hannibal’s defeat at Zama arguably had a global effect that continues even today
(Mosig & Belhassen, 2006). If we borrow a very relevant perspective on the nature of historical
development from Eastern philosophy, we can look at history as occurring within an
interconnected reality, where every event influences the whole, and where certain happenings
significantly affect the unfolding of the future. Buddhist thought, for instance, regards the present
50
as the inescapable result of an infinite web of cause and effect (Mosig, 2005). Within this
framework, the Second Punic War, and especially the final confrontation at Zama, can be said to
represent a major turning point in world history.
A Carthaginian victory might have shifted the cultural center of the Mediterranean world
to Africa rather than Europe, with the influence of Greek culture persisting due to the
hellenization of the Punic city (Hahn, 1974), but manifesting itself in a different context.
Carthage, most likely, would have become the model to be emulated in the centuries to follow. A
commerce-oriented city-state concerned with economic growth and the resolution of conflicts
through negotiation rather than warfare, Carthage did not try to impose its religion or way of life
on others, being satisfied with mercantile expansion and hegemony. Would the world have been
a saner and more peaceful place today if Carthage had prevailed?
The victory of Rome, on the other hand, was the prelude to the military expansionism
that characterized the establishment and growth of the Roman Empire, through pre-emptive
warfare and the crushing of potential rivals before they could pose a threat, real or imagined.
Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, others tried to emulate and recreate it, including
Adolf Hitler, with his dream of the Thousand-Year Reich. The history of the world, in the
aftermath of the Roman victory at Zama, could be summarized in broad strokes as a sequence of
intermittent warfare, in which might made right and the end was taken to justify the means. This
is not to say that wars would have necessarily been absent in history, following a Carthaginian
victory, but merely to suggest that the defeat of a commercial metropolis by a militaristic power
in all likelihood enhanced the attractiveness of warfare as a means of conflict resolution, over
and above the alternatives of compromise and negotiation, with long-term consequences (Mosig
& Belhassen, 2006).
51
More recently, a number of cautionary voices have raised alarm and concern about the
actions of the world’s only remaining superpower, whose interventions seem to reflect imperial
ambitions patterned after the model of Rome (e.g., Murphy, 2007; Chomsky, 2007, 2003;
Johnson, 2006; Ewert, 2005; Bender, 2004). Naturally, it is not possible to demonstrate a direct
causal connection between Zama and current events. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it
represents only one critical factor among many in the infinite web of interconnected causality, it
is clear that the repercussions of Masinissa’s fateful charge into the battlefield of Zama continue
to reverberate today.
In conclusion, we have examined the events at the battle of Zama, attempting to separate
what probably transpired from historical fictions added by the pen of the victors. We have
analyzed the psychological reasons that necessitated the distortion of the events at Cannae and
Zama by pro-Roman historians, and have established the significance of the role of Masinissa in
the Roman victory that ended the Second Punic War. We have added our speculations on the
likely long term effects of the outcome of this critical conflict, as well as of the road not taken,
and hope that our work will stimulate further research and discussion on the subject.

[seany65]

I've not read all of your post, Cato, but I'm not sure that a victory for a society which threw babies onto fires to please/appease the Gods would've been quite as wonderful as the writers' may possibly think.

While a victory for Rome did usher in an age of military expansionism for Rome, I'm not sure that it caused the rest of the world to follow that path. After all, there were plenty of empires built on military expansionism before the town of rome was even founded.

[CatoTheYounger]

Im more focused on the break down of the battle, likely forces and reasons for victory being intriguing. The idea's about Carthage winning may have been a societal disaster is fuzzy to me as well. Although I do look down on a lot of the Romans pettiness and overdone militaristic mentality.

Cannae seems likely a bigger military feat then even the Romans wanted to admit. Or at least for different reasons that they were willing to concede. If you follow the well thought out rational anyhow.

[Legatus Legionarii]

Thank you very much for this very interesting feature about, well, not only about the battles of Cannae and Zama, but overall the 2^nd Punic War and Roman historiography as well. Though speculations regarding the “what if Carthage would have won the war” are tempting, I was less interested in that than in what I found regarding the events at Cannae and Zama, some of it which was new to me, for example the number of Roman cavalry present at Cannae and the most probable non-presence of Elephants at Zama. That the meeting between Hannibal and Scipio on the eve of Zama was fiction, I think we all know (knowing those who wrote about it) but even if it had taken place, the two generals would have said certainly different thinks than what Roman historiography want to make us believe was discussed between the two.

What I also found interesting while reading the post was the deconstruction of the myth of Scipio, especially his abilities as a general. Still, even if Scipio would have lost the battle of Zama, in most likelihood, Rome would have continued the war and would have won eventually in the long term. As was rightfully pointed out in the text: Rome should have acknowledged defeat after Cannae following the traditional rules of ancient warfare. This leads me to the conclusion that she would have certainly not acknowledged defeat even if Zama would have been lost. Regarding Cannae: That Rome did not accept her defeat after Cannae must have been a shock for Hannibal. But it was exactly this attitude, if I may say, which made Rome such a terrible foe and was most probably the reason for her success in becoming an Empire later.

One more word regarding Roman Imperialism: As always, there are different phases of development a state goes through. If looking at the 1^st Punic War, and if I am not mistaken, the Roman Senate was at first quite reluctant to engage on the side of the Marmertines… and I believe there were enough voices counselling against any engagement in Sicily. But then, after the successful conclusion of the war, with Sicily in Roman hands, Rome was not anymore the city state bound to Italian soil, and the Romans saw that more was possible to achieve. Ask yourself the question: If you have the chance to become the mistress of the Western Mediterranean (and the ancient world), would you not grasp that opportunity?

One last speculative word on the “what if Carthage would have won the war”. The devs of RTR VII underline on page 5 of their manual for their “Fate of Empires” mod that:
QUOTE:
The idea that Punic aristocracy was unwarlike is untrue at any time, and especially untrue at our period (3^rd century BC)… As for the aristocracy, the cruelty with which Punic generals conducted their warfare – including the mass slaughter of civilians in captured cities – was famous… It is clear that Carthage was not a polity of peaceful merchants and seafarers victimized by Greek and Roman rivals – though many modern scholars persist in presenting Carthage this way… Carthaginian society and its external policies reveal that the city’s aristocracy were no less expansionist than their counterparts in Rome and elsewhere in the Mediterranean (…) the peacefulness of seafaring and maritime trade in ancient time should not be exaggerated either – as ancient traders were typically potential pirates, raiders and slavers (…)
UNQUOTE
What I want to say is that even if Hannibal’s aim was not to completely destroy the Roman city state – playing by the rule of ancient warfare as he was accustomed to, we do not know if a victorious Carthaginian Empire or any future Hannibal would not have developed the same militancy and aggressiveness which became so characteristic for Rome after she became the dominant power first in the Western Mediterranean and later large parts of the known ancient world. Ancient warfare was cruel, and so was forming an Empire. I do not believe that this would have changed if Carthage would have won the 2^nd Punic War.

[DeathtoEgo]

An excellent read, I always roll my eyes when I see Scipio Africanus' name on a "Greatest Generals" list. I mean he was at best just your average competent Repubican Roman General, he just happened to be commanding the veteran army that finally defeated the physically wearied and probably mentally exhausted Hannibal with his much depleted ragtag army recently replenished by raw recruits. The fact that a huge contributing factor to Hannibal's defeat being the loss of double crossing Numidians does not add to Scipio's reputation as a "good" General. Let's be honest Scipio's name would have a small footnote in the history books like so many other able Roman Generals if not for Hannibals defeat at Zama.

[CatoTheYounger]

I have a higher respect then you for Scipio. His victories in Spain were impressive. He had luck as well. Finding New Carthage virtually undefended as Hasdrubal was away battling revolting Iberian tribes, was about as much good fortune as one could hope for. The battle of Ilipa was a great victory for Scipio, both in terms of his pre battle maneuvers to set up the battle, and it's execution. The fact that he learned from Hannibal is not a slight, just shows he was a good student unlike most Roman Generals of that war. I do believe Hannibal was superior however.

As far as the author of this articles musings on how history might have been changed, I agree with Legatus post above that the author goes to far. And Carthage seemed ever bit as blunt and forceful as Rome. Hannibal was generally lenient with prisoners and was gracious to the vanquished in Italy at least.

As far as the reporting of the battle and of the war in general it seems obvious when reading livy's account when he is being biased or making things up. Almost always sticks out. Clearly the evidence of the way even Livy describes the battle and it's set up, suggest that Paullus would be the one that was in the command that day. And his deciding to stay and die(falling on his sword), seems more likely the act of a commanding general who led his army to destruction. And for all the slander Livy puts on Varro, Varro was welcomed back with open arms and had a successful career from that point forward. Seems the evidence suggest bias and spin by Roman sources. Not to mention the cause for the war seems to lean to Rome being more at fault as Carthage neither broke a treaty, or did anything wrong when attacking Sagunton who had attacked one of Carthage's allies. Either way it interesting stuff.

[dvk901]

The only thing that annoys me at times is the accusation that Polybius or Livy would purposely exaggerate or disseminate false information. I'm not saying they were necessarily 'correct', but it's a fact that neither was born or wrote about the events in question when indeed they had just happened. When I look for reasons, or motivation for them to exaggerate or report false information, I just don't see a purpose for it...the events were long gone in the minds of people when either one wrote of them. So what would they accomplish? Even more hypocritical are those historians who, thousands of years later, point the finger and project motives simply because they may have a larger and more complete archeological compilation of the facts that either of the Roman historians had. Afterall, what did Polybius and Livey have to work with. Word of mouth? What someone who was there saw? Or what someone who was there said to someone else who was not? The writing of history, afterall, in this day and age, was pretty much limited to documents like the Bible, or carved on walls and tablets...Polybius and Livy were really quite unusual in the sense that they tried to write down history in a more 'modern' way, having very limited resources. I guess you can take from that that I admire them, rather than criticize them for being Roman propaganda mouth-pieces.

Regarding the battle of Cannae, my take on it is simply that the Romans 'had no idea who they were @#$%ing with'. Hannibal was a military genius...one of those Commanders, I imagine, who could see the whole scale of the battle in his mind...predict how it was going to unfold, and basically force it to play out that way regardless of numbers and statistics. The Roman generals? Run-of-the-mill. Not bad, not good...and certainly not of Hannibal's character. Put Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great at Cannae (not that I am necessarily comparing them or making them equal), and things could've been different.

Another thing I have gleaned from my study of the Romans is that they were a 'paranoid' people when it came to dealing with 'perceived enemies'. If someone attacked them, or killed Romans.....EVER....they never forgot it, even if it made no sense to remember it. Look at what happened with Varrus and the lost Legions in Germania. Even though the Romans knew they couldn't control that area simply because of geography....they still sent a bunch of Legions up there to kill everyone and anyone who had anything to do with that massacre. Then they left. This was repeated over and over by the Romans. If you attacked them, or they attacked first..no matter. If you resisted and killed Romans, you were going to pay one way or another...it was just a matter of time. Rome did not leave anything standing that could attack or resist their control.

In that vain, it doesn't really matter who started the 2nd Punic War. The mistake Carthage made was EVER going to war with Rome at all. It was almost like a 'cultural memory'; like the Gauls sacking Rome, or the Dacians plundering in Greece, or Parthia attacking the Mideast....if you ever attacked them, even a hundred or two hundred years before, they would come..and they would eventually crush you to dust.

[tobymoby]

The only thing that annoys me at times is the accusation that Polybius or Livy would purposely exaggerate or disseminate false information. I'm not saying they were necessarily 'correct', but it's a fact that neither was born or wrote about the events in question when indeed they had just happened. When I look for reasons, or motivation for them to exaggerate or report false information, I just don't see a purpose for it...the events were long gone in the minds of people when either one wrote of them. So what would they accomplish? Even more hypocritical are those historians who, thousands of years later, point the finger and project motives simply because they may have a larger and more complete archeological compilation of the facts that either of the Roman historians had. Afterall, what did Polybius and Livey have to work with. Word of mouth? What someone who was there saw? Or what someone who was there said to someone else who was not? The writing of history, afterall, in this day and age, was pretty much limited to documents like the Bible, or carved on walls and tablets...Polybius and Livy were really quite unusual in the sense that they tried to write down history in a more 'modern' way, having very limited resources. I guess you can take from that that I admire them, rather than criticize them for being Roman propaganda mouth-pieces.

Exaggeration is unfortunately very common in historiography though. The reason to do this is create a narrative that pushes a theme to the reader. So when at Magensia, Livy remarks that the Seleukid host was nearly double the Roman host, he deliberately increases the number to make a point: the puny little Romans going against a superpower; and yet despite being outnumbered, the humble Romans still won. It magnifies the victory and the perception of the victory and showcases Livy's own opinion of the battle. That is what they accomplish. And you can see this with Herodotos as well, magnifying Xerxes' army to over a million men. Forget how much of a logistical nightmare that would be for a pre-modern empire, let alone a modern one; but the point still stands, the Greeks were outnumbered and won only through the supposed "justness" of their cause. Even Plutrach is guilty because in his "Life of Crassus" he criticizes him at Carrhae; this is done to minimize the scale of the Parthian victory and conveniently forgot what Surena pulled off.

I am not sure what you mean by Livy and Polybios writing like modern historians; Herodotos and practically all ancient historians did not make events up, they found sources and condensed them to create a narrative with their own take on the events being subtly mentioned. In terms of style and general thought process, I would say Thukydides and Tacitus were the closest to our modern understanding of ancient history, hence why they are so popular today.

[CatoTheYounger]

Livy had a couple things to gain from altering events or fabricating some things. First of all he was basically friends with and in the employ of Fabius family. He was also a conservative and seemed to look for every opportunity to blame a plebe and their lowly upbringing for Roman failures, even when evidence suggested they were not any less reliable then the other Roman Generals. Excusing Paullus and totally blaming Varro was one example, putting down Flamminius when he was only doing his duty was another. Then there were the unlikely speeches he recited verbatim, and the less then believable meeting between Hannibal and Scipio before the battle of Zama. Another thing is Livy would embellish possibly for satisfaction. He seemed to want to prove the rightness of the Romans cause and used nationalistic rhetoric about how the war proved the Roman people were superior in spirit then any other nation. And Livy had access to the imperial records, Fabius Pictor and Polybius version before him. it was even suggested that he had access to Hannibals Journals that were known at the time, but lost to us now. Livy was not guessing.

No other nation could lose 30000,15000 and 50000-80000 in 3 consecutive battles. Maybe not even one. They lacked the manpower to field new armies. Rome still had manpower and standing Legions in many locations. Why would they surrender unless you took the city itself? Roman spirit is the nationalistic explanation about why the Romans refused to surrender. That is not likely. They submitted to the Gauls and paid a large tribute. Where was their character then? The city was taken. Later Rome would be sacked by invader further down the line in their history, but the Roman people never fought back. In each case they opened the gates to their enemies and did not stand for their city. Manpower gave the Romans the ability to continue fighting no matter how bad they were continually drubbed. All other nations lacked that.

Or you can believe that they were superior people. I chose not to buy that premise. It seemed the factors were manpower, ability to win a war of attrition with anybody and a paranoid mentality like you mentioned above. Livy choses to focus on the Romans just keeping the faith better then other nations when under pressure. But when Carthage lost their army, there was no flood of legions that they could so easily raise. Romans never faced that dilemma. It wasn't their character it seems, but more like their advantage of recruitable fodder they could endlessly tap into regardless of the number of times they were out general and out fought.

No reason to embellish? If you ignore Humans need to spin things the way they want things to be perceived and their prejudices and nationalistic mentality, then maybe your right. Seems plenty of reason to be suspicious. My copy of Hannibals War from Oxford classics has countless notes about livius mix ups, contradictory explenations and unfounded statements. Even pointing out how Saguntum was not a formal Ally of Rome and was more like a city on friendly terms. Even then it was north of the Ebro, and had attacked Carthage's Ally to boot. But Livy spins it based on his need to prove the Romans were in the right on moral grounds. Was not convincing. He even seemed embaressed trying to explain how Scipio violated the truce by "mistake", and even admitted he wasn't sure if he believed it.

Oh Well, it's all fun to read and debate. I just notice the moments when the author goes out of character and seems false. Now, about the likely reality that Alexander lost to Porus.....

[dvk901]

What I was trying to say...albeit rather poorly, I guess, is that modern historians have far more sources to draw on than either Livy or Polybius...meaning that, a better picture can be painted of the facts. Both these historians only had Roman sources to pull from...as one said, a family, a person who was there, etc. It doesn't mean that they 'themselves' intended to warp the facts. It could just be that their sources did so.

As to the manpower issue, it is interesting to note that Carthage (the city) had at best a population of 200,000 or so, but very few of its own people were really doing the fighting. Mercenaries have a vested interest only in money, not a 'nationalistic spirit', or actually anything to protect except themselves and their pay. Rome, however, had at least 3-4 times the population of Carthage, and a vested interest in their nation-city-state. So the simple attitude of those whom are fighting is very different.

[God of Thunder 356]

An excellent read, I always roll my eyes when I see Scipio Africanus' name on a "Greatest Generals" list. I mean he was at best just your average competent Repubican Roman General, he just happened to be commanding the veteran army that finally defeated the physically wearied and probably mentally exhausted Hannibal with his much depleted ragtag army recently replenished by raw recruits. The fact that a huge contributing factor to Hannibal's defeat being the loss of double crossing Numidians does not add to Scipio's reputation as a "good" General. Let's be honest Scipio's name would have a small footnote in the history books like so many other able Roman Generals if not for Hannibals defeat at Zama.

I would advise you to pick up a book on Scipio someday because he was far more than just "competent". His campaigns in Iberia were stunning, and all the more so when you consider that the balance of power was utterly in Carthage's favour when he arrived. The invasion of Africa was meticulously planned and executed. Yes, Scipio had a veteran army, but they were only able to achieve such a high level of drill and discipline because of his training of them.

Adrian Goldsworthy's " In The Name of Rome" is a good place to start if you want an overview of Scipio's campaigns and brilliance as a commander.

[DeathtoEgo]

I will take your advice, and delve maybe a little deeper into Scipio, to be honest, he is not as well known to me as say Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Marius, Sulla etc. Also because if you felt strongly enough to finally make a post after 8 months, I will give you the courtesy where its due. Thanks and I "officially" welcome you to twcenter.