08-06-2019, 02:27 PM
Revisiting Zama once more, but concerning the three spies.
Steven James earlier mentioned the three spies caught by Valerius Laevinus in Frontinus...
Frontinus Book 4 VII. On Sundry Maxims and Devices
7 The consul [Publius] Valerius Laevinus, having caught a spy within his camp, and having entire confidence in his own forces, ordered the man to be led around, observing that, for the sake of terrifying the enemy, his army was open to inspection by the spies of the enemy, as often as they wished.Well, there appear to be some interesting links between the three spies story and Lucius Cincius Alimentus.
Well, there appear to be some interesting links between the three spies story and Lucius Cincius Alimentus.
Lucius Cincius Alimentus was a subordinate officer of Marcus Valerius Laevinus`, Publius` grandson's command in Sicily between 211 and 208 BC.
Alimentus had been captured by Hannibal in 208 BC, but he was no ordinary prisoner. His claim (in Livy 21.38) to have conversed with Hannibal seems within reason considering his status in the Roman military, but it would be most doubtful that he would have accompanied Hannibal on his march to Zama in 202. So, where might Alimentus have gathered information for events in the Zama campaign? On his release, after the final peace treaty terms had been agreed to and the delegates to Rome had returned to Africa, I think it most likely that he met and had discussions with Scipio and also his subordinate officers from April (this was six months after the battle of Zama and enough time to get their version of events right) to their arrival in Rome in May-June of 201 BC and Scipio`s Triumph.
But with regard to the three spies; it's quite probable that the story of three spies before the battle of Heraclea was either already an element in the Valerii family oral history, or Alimentus added later it to flatter his old commanding officer's grandfather, Publius Valerius Laevinus; an attempt to soften the blow of the family member's defeat at the hands of Pyrrhus.
Alimentus may have been the first to add the three spies episode to history of the Zama campaign.
History tends to grow in the telling, and the versions of Publius Valerius Laevinus` stratagem used against Pyrrhus vary quite considerably between authors over three hundred years or so.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus(60-7 BC), in Romans Antiquities, 19 excerpt 9, 10 has Laevinus parade the army to demonstrate Roman strength to Pyrrhus` captured spy. Writing after Livy, Sextus Julius Frontinus (c. 40 – 103 AD) says that Laevinus had a spy led around the camp. Plutarch (46 - 120 AD), in his Parallel Lives, Pyrrhus, 16.3-4 does not mention enemy spies or scouts - it is quite a different account. In Plutarch, Pyrrhus observes the enemy camp and their movements and his confidence is dented by their apparent good order. Cassius Dio (155 – 235 AD) in his Roman History, 9 fr. 13 tells us that Pyrrhus and Laevinus exchanged letters and the Laevinus catches some of Pyrrhus` scouts to send a message back to Pyrrhus with news that he has more troops than Pyrrhus.
All these versions though, have Pyrrhus` confidence checked by the Roman's readiness for battle and/or a numerical advantage and these are all ultimately based upon Herodotus` account of the three Greek spies in Sardis in 481 BC.
Herodotus on the Greek Spies in Sardes
[7.146] [The Greek spies] arrived in Sardes and found out all they could about the king's army, but were caught in the process, questioned by the Persian army commanders and condemned to death. But when Xerxes was told that they were about to be executed, he disapproved of his generals' decision and sent men from his bodyguard with orders to get hold of the three spies, if they were still alive, and bring them before him. As the sentence had not yet been carried out, this was done; the spies were brought to the king, who, having satisfied himself about the reason for their presence in Sardes, instructed his guards to take them round and let them see the whole army, infantry and cavalry, and then, when they were satisfied that they had seen everything, to let them go without molestation to whatever country they pleased.
[7.147] After giving this order, he explained the purpose of it by pointing out that, if the spies had been executed, the Greeks would not have been able to learn in good time how incalculably great the Persian strength was - and the killing of three men would not have done the enemy much harm; but if, on the other hand, the spies returned home, he was confident that their report on the magnitude of the Persian power would induce the Greeks to surrender their liberty before the actual invasion took place, so that there would be no need to go to the trouble of fighting a war at all.
(https://www.livius.org/sources/content/h...in-sardes/)
Conversely, most of the accounts that describe the three spies episode in the lead up to the battle of Zama are essentially the same, but with the one notable exception, that in Polybius` version, with Scipio knowing that Massinissa will be joining his army soon, has the captured spies taken on a tour of his camp and in appearing to be weak in cavalry he deceives Hannibal, goading him to giving battle on the following day.
Polybius must have known that the three spies had been borrowed from Herodotus, and was probably aware of it re-appearing in Alimentus with respect to Laevinus and Pyrrhus, but he decided to re-use it once more anyhow in order to make a meeting between Hannibal and Scipio and the great battle of Zama appear more credible.
With the cavalry battle of Zama (the one described by both Appian and Cassius Dio) followed by the great battle of Zama it would have appeared odd that Hannibal had then decided to engage Scipio knowing that his cavalry were at a disadvantage; the three spies story allowed Polybius to explain Hannibal's surprise in finding out that Massinissa had reinforced Scipio.
It seems very probable to me at least, that Alimentus` history of the Zama campaign included the three spies episode; it must have been close to original, being a show of strength, it may have been a repeat of Marcus Valerius Laevinus` story of his grandfather, Publius Valerius Laevinus, who allegedly managed to undermine Pyrrhus` confidence before the battle of Heraclea.
Steven James earlier mentioned the three spies caught by Valerius Laevinus in Frontinus...
Frontinus Book 4 VII. On Sundry Maxims and Devices
7 The consul [Publius] Valerius Laevinus, having caught a spy within his camp, and having entire confidence in his own forces, ordered the man to be led around, observing that, for the sake of terrifying the enemy, his army was open to inspection by the spies of the enemy, as often as they wished.Well, there appear to be some interesting links between the three spies story and Lucius Cincius Alimentus.
Well, there appear to be some interesting links between the three spies story and Lucius Cincius Alimentus.
Lucius Cincius Alimentus was a subordinate officer of Marcus Valerius Laevinus`, Publius` grandson's command in Sicily between 211 and 208 BC.
Alimentus had been captured by Hannibal in 208 BC, but he was no ordinary prisoner. His claim (in Livy 21.38) to have conversed with Hannibal seems within reason considering his status in the Roman military, but it would be most doubtful that he would have accompanied Hannibal on his march to Zama in 202. So, where might Alimentus have gathered information for events in the Zama campaign? On his release, after the final peace treaty terms had been agreed to and the delegates to Rome had returned to Africa, I think it most likely that he met and had discussions with Scipio and also his subordinate officers from April (this was six months after the battle of Zama and enough time to get their version of events right) to their arrival in Rome in May-June of 201 BC and Scipio`s Triumph.
But with regard to the three spies; it's quite probable that the story of three spies before the battle of Heraclea was either already an element in the Valerii family oral history, or Alimentus added later it to flatter his old commanding officer's grandfather, Publius Valerius Laevinus; an attempt to soften the blow of the family member's defeat at the hands of Pyrrhus.
Alimentus may have been the first to add the three spies episode to history of the Zama campaign.
History tends to grow in the telling, and the versions of Publius Valerius Laevinus` stratagem used against Pyrrhus vary quite considerably between authors over three hundred years or so.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus(60-7 BC), in Romans Antiquities, 19 excerpt 9, 10 has Laevinus parade the army to demonstrate Roman strength to Pyrrhus` captured spy. Writing after Livy, Sextus Julius Frontinus (c. 40 – 103 AD) says that Laevinus had a spy led around the camp. Plutarch (46 - 120 AD), in his Parallel Lives, Pyrrhus, 16.3-4 does not mention enemy spies or scouts - it is quite a different account. In Plutarch, Pyrrhus observes the enemy camp and their movements and his confidence is dented by their apparent good order. Cassius Dio (155 – 235 AD) in his Roman History, 9 fr. 13 tells us that Pyrrhus and Laevinus exchanged letters and the Laevinus catches some of Pyrrhus` scouts to send a message back to Pyrrhus with news that he has more troops than Pyrrhus.
All these versions though, have Pyrrhus` confidence checked by the Roman's readiness for battle and/or a numerical advantage and these are all ultimately based upon Herodotus` account of the three Greek spies in Sardis in 481 BC.
Herodotus on the Greek Spies in Sardes
[7.146] [The Greek spies] arrived in Sardes and found out all they could about the king's army, but were caught in the process, questioned by the Persian army commanders and condemned to death. But when Xerxes was told that they were about to be executed, he disapproved of his generals' decision and sent men from his bodyguard with orders to get hold of the three spies, if they were still alive, and bring them before him. As the sentence had not yet been carried out, this was done; the spies were brought to the king, who, having satisfied himself about the reason for their presence in Sardes, instructed his guards to take them round and let them see the whole army, infantry and cavalry, and then, when they were satisfied that they had seen everything, to let them go without molestation to whatever country they pleased.
[7.147] After giving this order, he explained the purpose of it by pointing out that, if the spies had been executed, the Greeks would not have been able to learn in good time how incalculably great the Persian strength was - and the killing of three men would not have done the enemy much harm; but if, on the other hand, the spies returned home, he was confident that their report on the magnitude of the Persian power would induce the Greeks to surrender their liberty before the actual invasion took place, so that there would be no need to go to the trouble of fighting a war at all.
(https://www.livius.org/sources/content/h...in-sardes/)
Conversely, most of the accounts that describe the three spies episode in the lead up to the battle of Zama are essentially the same, but with the one notable exception, that in Polybius` version, with Scipio knowing that Massinissa will be joining his army soon, has the captured spies taken on a tour of his camp and in appearing to be weak in cavalry he deceives Hannibal, goading him to giving battle on the following day.
Polybius must have known that the three spies had been borrowed from Herodotus, and was probably aware of it re-appearing in Alimentus with respect to Laevinus and Pyrrhus, but he decided to re-use it once more anyhow in order to make a meeting between Hannibal and Scipio and the great battle of Zama appear more credible.
With the cavalry battle of Zama (the one described by both Appian and Cassius Dio) followed by the great battle of Zama it would have appeared odd that Hannibal had then decided to engage Scipio knowing that his cavalry were at a disadvantage; the three spies story allowed Polybius to explain Hannibal's surprise in finding out that Massinissa had reinforced Scipio.
It seems very probable to me at least, that Alimentus` history of the Zama campaign included the three spies episode; it must have been close to original, being a show of strength, it may have been a repeat of Marcus Valerius Laevinus` story of his grandfather, Publius Valerius Laevinus, who allegedly managed to undermine Pyrrhus` confidence before the battle of Heraclea.
