Zama: The Battle That Never Was?

[Bryan]

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

we dont have any extraordinary evidence about a lot of things that is just assumed. For example, sole existence of Marcus Claudius Marcellus and his life is based on indirect mentions, while we dont have anything direct about him. and another fact worth to mention is the way how written mentions survived to these days, often just as translated texts of some unknown monks who made a lot of mistakes translating things they dont understood (military affairs) from latin, while we (usually) dont have any original sources.

Extraordinary means "very unusual or remarkable." So we're not discussing run of the mill historical accounts, like those about M. Claudius Marcellus.

You mentioned Alexander the Great before, so I'll touch on him. A historical claim would be that he existed, was a Macedonian warrior king, conquered Persia and further eastern lands, et cetera; all based off the evidence provided by those surviving sources which discuss his life. While many of the stories have contradictory descriptions in them, its still quite easy to get an overall historical picture of his life, enough that a historical consensus has been established. Is it completely accurate? Probably not, but like I mentioned before, its history, not math. We only have the evidence we have to work with.

Meanwhile, also using Alexander as an example, an extraordinary claim would be something like the recent discussions that he lost the Battle of the Hydaspes, which I've read quite a few times recently in various forums. While the ancient sources claim otherwise, the evidence used is mostly circumstantial, such as why Alexander turned back shortly after (fake mutiny to explain major defeat), the massive losses of soldiers while crossing the Gedrosian (explain away casualties incurred during failed battle), the lack of any mention of Alexander by existing India sources, etc. So in that case, an unusual and remarkable hypothesis was made but only negative evidence is used to support it. So its pure speculation with nothing to really back it up. In other words, extraordinary evidence was not provided to support the extraordinary claim.

Now let's compare that to this thread. Multiple ancient sources report a battle occurring between Hannibal and Carthage vs. Scipio and Rome, in which Hannibal/Carthage is defeated. I've even mentioned many of them in my previous post, other posters have as well. Meanwhile, the most tangible evidence to support the "No Zama" theory are the small discrepancies in the historical record, mainly from Polybius, as well as problems with the political biases of authors, etc. Which I find amusing since all historical accounts are filled will inconsistencies or contradictions, and no historical author is without bias. Find two sources regarding ancient Rome that agree on anything, from size of military units, to tactics, to census figures, to historical records, to anything, and I'd be amazed. In this case, the historical consensus is then questioned, which is fine. But no real evidence is provided, which is not fine, and certainly not historical research. Unless I'm totally missing something, as historians, we're supposed to use evidence to back our theories, not a lack of evidence.

Overall, I support outlandish claims that go against the historical record; its not like everyone from the 19th and 20th centuries had it all figured out. I think many modern historians are doing well by questioning some of the "established" fundamentals that have been presented in the past. But if someone is going to make a claim that counters the established consensus, they had better bring their "A game" to defend it, in a way that is easy understood by one and all. This goes not only for history, but for anything else. The person making the claims has the responsibility to defend it.

With the field of history being beaten and trod upon daily in the day and age of the internet discussion boards filled with commonly repeated falsities, or even worse, cable television 'documentaries' like Ancient Aliens, its understandable that some will get a bit crotchety when unsubstantiated claims are made.