The Battle of Zama Didn't Happen as Documented

Pro: You stated in a previous argument that if I do not trust Polybius's info on the battle of Zama, I have no reason to believe in Hannibal's accomplishments such as the battle of Cannae. When I said it would not benefit Polybius to lie about that, I did not miss your point, I explained that that argument was not valid. Con: So Polybius accurately reports Cannae but is dishonest when it comes to Zama? We"ve agreed that Polybius may be biased but as I"ve pointed out, Polybius has reputation for careful documentation sufficient to earn him the appellation "Father of Roman historiography". He"s certainly given Hannibal a fairly heroic biography. I"ve demonstrated why I find Polybius" account plausible and countered your claims of illogical narrative. Nor have you offered an alternative narrative or contradictory report. You seem confident that Hannibal must have used his elephants and infantry to greater effect than Polybius says but I can"t tell why. We know Hannibal suffered a catastrophic loss and sued for a humiliating peace so the outcome matches the description. Pro: Caesar's information about Vercingetorix is not a good example of having reason to trust people like Polybius' documents. Caesar lied about a lot of stuff i.e. when he claimed that the people in Britain were secretly giving the Gauls supplies. Con: Seems plausible enough, tribes traded across the English Channel long before the Romans arrived. I"m not therefore certain Britain aided Gaul but I have no rationale or counter-claim that refutes Caesar and Caesar is my only source. You may be certain Caesar lied about this but I need a more dissuasive argument. Pro: You can not claim that this is a misinterpretation of your point as I am trying to prove Polybius lied a bit about the battle of Zama, which is exactly what Caesar did with the Gauls. "We agree the details are sketchy. History belongs to the victorious and the story of the defeated is seldom properly told." This statement doesn't work in your favor as you are agreeing that the battle of Zama didn't happen as documented. You have just agreed that I am correct about the battle of Zama. Pro: Nope. We agreed that we should be skeptical regarding single-sourced ancient accounts with little archeological evidence. Saying that witness testimony is sometimes unreliable does not count as proof of guilt or innocence in court. We don"t discount credible witnesses without evidence of lying. Simply saying, "It may have happened otherwise" does not amount to "this must be false". Pro: In this statement: "Well, Polybius would seem to agree. He only claims "some" elephants hit the left flank and credits Masinissa"s Numidians with driving off the left flank." you agreed that Polybius lied about the number of elephants by agreeing that the elephants were not numerous enough to mess up the Carthaginian left flank. Con: In R1, you stated that Polybius describes the elephants as routing the left flank. But Polybius said no such thing. Polybius says some elephants hit that line, but it was Masinissa"s horsemen who routed the left flank. You got Polybius"s account wrong then argued against the claim nobody made. In R2, you changed your argument from "drivers would have spiked their elephants" to "there must have been fewer elephants" at least, not enough elephants to turn the flank. Polybius agrees with you, the elephants did not turn the flank- Masnissa did. Pro: This is not me taking one point out of context as if the Romans targeted the elephant riders, there would be a lot more elephants than "some" messing up the Carthaginian left flank. Con: How do you know? Based on what? Polybius responsibly keeps the number vague because all he could find out that at least some elephants charged the left, not enough to break the line. You"ve now claimed that the number must be either less or more than "some". Pro: you either have to agree that Polybius lied about the number of elephants helping the Romans beat Hannibal's army or the number of elephants Carthage took to the battle, both resulting in the battle of Zama not happening as documented. Con: What I see is that Polybius gave us specific numbers of elephants when he had good information, a few of which I"ve related (11 elephants survived Zama, 27 came down from the Alps, Mago had 32, etc). He does not have a good report of the number of Elephants who hit the left flank, he only knows that some did because that"s what some soldiers he interviewed told him. He does not claim more than he knows. You have argued both that the elephants could not have crashed the line AND that if they crashed the line there must have been more than "some." Some could be five or fifty, you don"t know the number either except to say that you"re confident that number must be wrong. Frankly, I don"t find your argument persuasive. Pro: About your last point, Hannibal didn't have to stand there, he could have tried to retreat, Con: Nope, calvary in the rear. To retreat, Hannibal would have to break formation to move in column, easy pickings for a calvary charge. Pro: or even better, not fight in the battle of Zama in the first place. Hannibal had a very good idea of when to fight and when not to when he was campaigning in Italy, do you believe that that skill just went away as soon as he went back to Africa? The point that Hannibal had to engage to prevent Carthage isn't either good (in case you plan on using it). Fighting in the battle of Zama doomed Carthage, but if he didn't fight it then although Scipio would ravage parts of Carthage, he would have at least had a good chance to prevent his defeat. Again, this is unlikely to have been a stupid decision as he was capable of making such decisions in Italy. Con: But he did fight at Zama and lost. Even the greatest generals make catastrophic mistakes. Would you argue Napoleon did not go to Russia because he demonstrated genius at Austerlitz? Would you argue that Lee could not have ordered Pickett"s Charge because of Chancellorsville? I"ve already states that Carthage was doomed before Hannibal came ashore. In some other debate, I"d even argue that Carthage lost because Hannibal pursued glory across the Alps, leaving Spain and Africa exposed. Pro: I enjoyed debating this topic with you. Con: Thanks and likewise.