Apologies for not answering your previous post in a timely manner. I have three kids who I need to look after first.There were probably ~6500 Roman and Italian hastati , with the help of ~6000 Numidians and some part of the velites, they weren't greatly outnumbered by Hannibals' first line, most of whom were light-armed.
Assuming that Appian numbers are correct, we can either choose that Masinissa adds 6000 Numidian lights to Scipios 23k foot, or he adds most of these 6000 trained in the Roman fashion.It is far more likely (and consistent with the sources) that the Romans numbered about 34,000 and the Carthaginians perhaps a few thousand more.
Scipio had two legions (Vth & VIth) plus associated Latin and Italian allies, as did all Roman commanders of consular rank until the Social War. These were veteran troops, many were survivors Cannae and Herdonea and had been serving many years. They were brought up to strength by men who served with Marcellus in crushing the Sicilian revolt (215-211BC) and volunteers from Italy, most of whom probably had served with Scipio in Spain or seen service in Italy. Scipio was not allowed by the Senate to levy troops in Italy, and he would hardly recruit in Sicily which was recovering from being defeated, sacked and massacred by the Romans during the revolt. The 32,000 given by Livy is reasonable for the total expeditionary force, and Appians' 24,500 is also reasonable after 2 years of campaigning and necessary detachments. Both Polybius and Appian say Massinissa joined Scipio before the battle with 10,000 Numidians, he was by this time ruler of the kingdom and didn't need any Roman troops (nor would Romans accept a foriegn commander).
The only numbers the sources provide on the Carthaginian side are the 80+ elephants, 12,000 Gauls, Ligurians, Mauritanians and Bealearic Islanders (these were men who had served with Mago in North Italy 205-203BC) and 1500 dissident Numidian cavalry. The rest of Hannibals' army consisted of an unspecified number of recent levies of Carthaginian citizens and Lybians (upon whom he placed little reliance) and his veteran troops from Italy (Livy's 4,000 Macedonians are very unlikely and probably a patriotic insertion in his account which was taken from Polybius). How many of the "old guard" of Africans and Spaniards had survived 15 years of campaigning in Italy, and how many Bruttians, Lucanians and Oscans were willing to forsake their homes to follow their commander is uncertain. Hallward (in the old edition of the Cambridge Ancient History) estimates a total of 40,000, Liddell-Hart says 50-55,000, I don't know what Walbank, Goldsworthy or Lazenby say. If forced to speculate, I'd say (for what it is worth) Hannibal knew he was outnumbered in cavalry and that at least a third of his infantry was inferior to the Roman veterans, so he would not have engaged unless he was at least equal in overall numbers.
Interesting.There were probably ~6500 Roman and Italian hastati , with the help of ~6000 Numidians and some part of the velites, they weren't greatly outnumbered by Hannibals' first line, most of whom were light-armed.
The first part dealt with in my previous post.We'll have to agree to disagree.
I figure ~6500 hastati + ~6000 Numidians + however many of the ~6500 velites had avoided being stomped by pachyderms by taking shelter behind the maniples of hastati were enough to deal with the 12,000 mercenaries. But that's OK, I have my own problem with Polybius III.107 (re the Roman army at Cannae).
Have you ever seen the 1937 Italian epic film about Scipio Africanus? The battle of Zama sequence is remarkable. It is said Mussolini sent many of the extras from the set directly to Ethiopia.
Watch out for the little guys, they might ambush you like Flaminius at Trasimene.
Lechyd da (?)
I disagree. Apparently he was going to sacrifice the very citizens he was supposed to be protecting. His veterans were also not used in a timely fashion either, according to any source.Hannibal's plan was masterful, in my opinion. I don't notice any decline in his ability over time.
Reality, I'm afraid, is no wargame. To say so betrays any understanding of such. Not to mention the elephant in the room (pardon that...): hindsight. Again, Hannibal had an advantage in infantry. His dispositions and tactics scream it.If you re-fight Zama as a wargame, with numbers as stated, its virtually impossible for Hannibal to lose. He simply extends his line, places elephants on his wings to protect the foot from cavalry, and proceeds to envelop the enemy as he always does. Hannibals army is simply set up poorly, and then mishandled for the outset, if we follow received wisdom.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Price Revolution and price index for Germany, 1500-1600||Early Modern History|
|Home Movies of Nazi Germany||Movies / Television|
|British and Germany rivalry early 20th century||European History|
|What is the source of "If only Britain did not declare war on Nazi Germany her Empire would still be intact" theory ?||General History|