The Battle of Zama - did it actually happen?
I thought that a theory that the battle was invented by Roman propagandists was an interesting way of talking about the battle. For good or ill, I end up rambling for a very long time about how to kill an elephant, harbours, trumpets, and other side-tracks in my longest video yet.
Comments (2)
That was fascinating '
Great insight as always, Nikolas!* I'm sure Yozan was very tenacious about you changing to his "Zama was a hoax" theory. I agree with your skepticism towards the theory and have argued a lot about the topic with Yozan while I was working on my illustrated novel project about the battle of Cannae (Darkness over Cannae). One of my main arguments for the battle has been that Scipio received a triumph upon his return to Rome. It would have been considered nothing short of blasphemy to do that when there had not been a battle. There was a monument in Rome to his triumph, if none (that we know of) on the Great Plains. The dating of the war harbour to the time just prior to the Third Punic War is intriguing though. But naturally, the very fact that this theory is being argued so vociferously by non-historians with clear bias appears to make actual historians give it a very wide berth. I haven't seen it discussed, at all, in any more scientific research. *Not Lloyd, silly me!